Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

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.


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); or
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.

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


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


Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

}} ~~~~

Follow this link to today's log 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:

|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
}} ~~~~

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

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2021 April 16}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.


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=2021 April 16}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2021 April 16|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express his or her 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.
  • Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

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.

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. 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 finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

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

  • 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 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

16 April 2021

12 April 2021


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

An earlier version of this page appears to have been deleted back in 2018 because it was flagged as overly promotional. Is it possible to revert this to a draft status so I can edit it and bring it up to Wikipedia's standards, or is it gone forever and I should start a new page from scratch? Grn1749 (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Question - Why would you want to start an article from a previous article that was deleted from both WP:G11 and WP:A7? That means that after the canned meat was thrown away, there was nothing left. If there is anything of substance to build a draft or an article, it isn't in the deleted article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • If you're interested in writing a new article about it then I suggest you start from scratch. The deleted article was written by the company using material taken from their website (e.g. here). While this isn't a copyright violation because they gave permission, the text was very promotional and would need to be mostly or entirely rewritten. Hut 8.5 11:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon and Hut 8.5: Thanks for the info. I'm not familiar with the deletion protocols so I wasn't sure if there was possibly anything usable left from the original page. Based on your comments I'll start a new page from scratch. Thanks! Grn1749 (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


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

TechEngage is a recognized news agency which is covered in in-depth by The "News & Observer" and "Honolulu Star" articles are multiple examples of significant coverage from independent sources for the site to pass GNG. Unless you have an indication they are not reliable then they are acceptable sources. A quick glance suggests the Bizjournals and Kinza articles are examples that support GNG. (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • The DRV text doesn't allege an error by the closer, this isn't a place to re-litigate the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 00:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The closer only considered SIGCOV and completely ignored the GNG. The site has significant coverage as per the above comment from reliable resources to consider GNG. Thanks RMSAJ (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Significant coverage is a requirement of the WP:GNG. It is impossible to "ignore the GNG" by considering whether a specific element of the GNG has been met. SportingFlyer T·C 12:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse:
      • This is a badly written appeal, but if it were a well-written appeal, I would endorse the close anyway, because the closer reached a well-reasoned conclusion.
      • This is also a self-contradictory appeal, because the appellant says that the closer only considered SIGCOV and ignored GNG; but SIGCOV is a necessary part of GNG, so that the closer determined that GNG was lacking because SIGCOV was lacking.
      • This appeal is re-litigation, and DRV is not for re-litigation.
      • I don't see a provision for Speedy Closure of a DRV because the appeal is absurd or bizarre, so maybe we just let it run for 7 days and endorse the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse - the closer correctly summarized the consensus. While a reasonable participant might have !voted differently, there's nothing unusual about concluding that the sources weren't sufficiently independent/substantial for purposes of WP:NCORP (the correct standard) or for that matter the GNG. We don't review AfDs de novo. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

11 April 2021

Tobias Broeker

Tobias Broeker (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

In the German deletion discussion (btw filed by the same IP) it becomes clear that this is not a self-promotion, but a musicologically highly relevant work, since several encyclopedically relevant contemporary composers around the world are represented by this editor! There is a difference between an author who publishes (promotes) his own work and a music publisher who edits and publishes the works of countless composers from whom he has been commissioned to do so. This fact in itself indicates sufficient encyclopedic relevance. The editor has 7,694 publications listed on WorldCat and got referenced at least in a total of six libraries within Germany and Switzerland. His work was, among many other projects, the basis for the album D'Indy - Dupuy: Sonates, recorded in the studio of the legendary piano master Stephen Paulello in HiRes-Audio (also distributed by jpc). Furthermore, no monetary (advertising) intentions are discernible, neither in the WP-article, nor on the website of the sheet music publisher. See Google cache for the last version. Thus please restore it in the article namespace (for a regular deletion discussion if necessary) or in my subpages for the further review, thx! Uwe Martens (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

"Wouldn't pass at AfD" is not a justification of a speedy, per se. The purpose of AfD is not just to get the right decision about a deletion, it also has an important role for learning for all involved. If someone wants to discuss, let them have the discussion, whatever the outcome it will probably be a useful exercise in learning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse as the original nominator 'a musicological highly relevant work, since several encyclopedically relevant contemporary composers all over the world are represented by this editor'? Absolute load of nonsense: if I write a book about Beethoven am I suddenly notable? There are virtually no proper third-party sources that speak about Tobias Broeker as a notable 'musicologist' or 'publisher'. There's a reason why the paragraph on 'publishing' had no external links. Broeker doesn't become notable just by putting his work on his own website and writing his own Wikipedia article: there needs to be some solid third-party coverage. (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
💡 Reading recommendation for getting an idea about the difference between an author, who publishes his own work, and a music publisher, who edits and publishes the work of countless composers! As I wrote you in the German discussion: You shouldn't make judgments in areas you obviously have no clue about! Uwe Martens (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to add here that Uwe Martens has taken the same attitude toward me, that I can't have a valid opinion because not agreeing with him means I don't know enough. – Athaenara 08:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, that I have too less edits in the EN:WP for initiating/supporting an admin reconfirmation process due to presumptuous and inappropriate behavior! But thanks for the confirmation of my opinion! Uwe Martens (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Uwe, I'm very familiar with music and musicology. No need to be rude. Let me use a clearer analogy: if I 're-type' a piece by Beethoven and put it as a download on my personal website, that doesn't automatically entitle me to a Wikipedia article. Tobias Broeker thought it did and wrote his own Wikipedia article. (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Also, reading your original comment Uwe, 'legendary piano master Stephen Paulello'??? You're clearly showing your bias here. (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
So thanks for confirming my suspicion that you're coming out of the music business, located somewhere in Amsterdam, with the intention to just "erase" the article of a competitor that was undisputed in two Wikipedias for almost two years! Beethoven, as far as I know, died some time ago. So he cannot commission a music publisher to edit and publish his manuscripts. Countless contemporary and encyclopedically relevant ("notable") composers have done so, thus entering into an agreement with the publisher. This is what you obviously don't want to get, even after several explanations. About Stephen Paulello, who also distributes piano strings in different historic alloys, I have another reading recommendation for you! Uwe Martens (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Uwe, Tobias wrote his own Wikipedia article because he isn't notable enough for anyone else to write it. Look for good third-party sources to show notability and you'll hardly find any. (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The library entries and the composers represented by the publisher are the main references. Of course we can search now on the websites of hundreds of composers for backlinks, but this is not necessary for coming to the simple conclusion, that this music publisher as individual entrepreneur is highly relevant ("notable") within the music business! Several users in the German deletion discussion related with the music sector have confirmed this meanwhile and you know about this but just don't want to accept it. Uwe Martens (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Anyone can pay to have something registered at a library. Where are the relevant reviews/analyses/biographies from the music business? Exactly. (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
You're still on the wrong track. We're talking about a music publisher. Not about an author. A music publisher publishes notes. You can find reviews/analyses/biographies by the hundreds about the compositions distributed by the publisher. BTW, only relevant ("notable") publications are listed in the cited libraries. Sorry, but I have no more time to entertain you any longer. This was now the final curtain! Uwe Martens (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • eh. There appears to be at least one review of a book of his. The article was certainly promotional. I'm inclined to go with endorse speedy but undelete and send to AfD just because A) he might be notable (though I have grave doubts based on the above discussion) and B) I suspect we'll be seeing recreations until we finally get a version that isn't overly promotional and *then* we'll end up at AfD. That said, Uwe Martens, if there aren't sources *about* Tobias Broeker that meet the GNG, or at least WP:AUTHOR this will be deleted. So you might want to find the best few sources and have them ready. Be sure you understand the sourcing requirements of WP:GNG. Reviews of his works in independent and reliable sources would help as would independent and reliable sources about him. Without those, this won't stay on en.wikipedia for long. Hobit (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but it seems to me that you also didn't get the difference between an author writing books (or making compositions) and an editor and publisher making a professional layout of the score for the performance and premiere of the composition. This is at least the main business of Tobias Bröker. In addition, he's also active as a musicologist, but I don't want to derive encyclopedic relevance only or solely from this activity. Uwe Martens (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
'publisher making a professional layout of the score' - we need third party sources that verify Tobias Broeker is 'notable' or 'important' for doing this. Do you really think every typesetter of a book (whether real or a pdf on a personal website) has a Wikipedia article? (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I told you that I won't entertain you any longer! It's clear that you have nothing more to do than repeating your deletion requests and arguments crosswiki over and over again. The time has finally come to block your one-purpose-IP! EOD! Uwe Martens (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Uwe, he's not wrong. On the English Wikipedia the topic needs to meet the either WP:GNG or a specific WP:SNG. This person doesn't meet either as far as I can tell. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Both conditions (GNG/SNG) are clearly fullfilled within the music business. Note, that not only facts are relevant which can be found directly on Google. References can be found by the hundreds on the websites of the represented composers (which can be found on Wikipedia as well). However, keep in mind that I am not a paid promoter defending other people's Wikipedia entries, especially without a recovered article at least on my subpages. As long as the article isn't restored, I won't work on it of course. The same goes for the German article, where I asked the article creator to format the references. I just checked the notability, which is clearly met. Opinions of single-purpose IPs, who are obviously competitors in the music business, are completely irrelevant. EOD from my side. Uwe Martens (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse I find this whole discussion really quite odd given what we normally see at DRV, to be honest. Getting directly to the issue at hand, I think this was a proper G11 deletion, the page reads clearly promotionally. Reviewing the cached version I don't see anything which could possibly serve as a GNG-qualifying source, so I'm not sure sending to AfD would be a good use of volunteer time (I think I found the same book review as Hobit did.) Keep deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I won't make a bolded recommendation because I can't see the article, but if it was anything like the discussion above then it was certainly promotional. Please don't try to pull the wool over our eyes by saying that something has become clear in the German deletion discussion when all we have there are irrelevant unsourced assertions by the same editor who is nominating here - some of us can read German, you know. I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and other people have also been unable to do so, so it is unlikely that this would pass AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Service Uwe Martens (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not able to locate any independent, reliable sources about Broeker. I can certainly find content written by him. But as a prerequisite for a biographical article, we require independently-written information about him.—S Marshall T/C 16:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Allow Re-Creation of Draft - I haven't seen the original and don't know whether the G11 was valid, but the risk involved in re-creating a draft for review is minimal. The likelihood of the draft being accepted may also be small, but in the case the Right Thing is to allow a draft to be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

9 April 2021

Vardhan Puri

Vardhan Puri (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Vardhan Puri is a Bollywood Actor and had his debut film released in Nov 2019. He is also the actor in the upcoming film titled "The Last Show" with Anupam Kher. ~

  • User:Va128912 - Did you file this DRV and forget to sign it? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse - No error by the closer. Also, based on what the filing party says, it is too soon to submit a draft for review, if the subject's second movie is yet to be released. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - If the draft were submitted to AFC in its present text, I would decline it as not meeting acting notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not even sure what's being requested here. I closed WP:Articles for deletion/Vardhan Puri almost two years ago. Since that time, it's been WP:REFUNDed by Muboshgu, had a bunch of copyvios revdel'd, and brought back to WP:REFUND again yesterday, where I declined to restore the copyvio material. So, I'm not at all sure where this is going. On top of that, Robert McClenon, I don't know what draft you're referring to. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - The version of the article that Va128912 tried to restore before it was rolled back to the redirect. If they were to submit that as a draft, which would be permitted, I would decline it. It looks the same as what was deleted in 2019. I agree with User:RoySmith that I am not sure what is being requested, but it is probably either to overturn the AFD or permission to submit a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment to User:Va128912 - Wikipedia takes copyright violation very seriously, and its editors should also. Please do not ask admins to restore deleted copyvio. Sometimes the editor also gets deleted blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The AfD, correctly closed, is really moot at this point per RoySmith. I would keep this deleted on copyvio grounds, which is really the appeal here, acknowledging the procedure may be incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 12:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse the July 2019 deletion. If events in November 2019 overcome the reasons for deletion, then the article may be re-created. You may request a WP:REFUND of the deleted article so as to not start from scratch, although starting from scratch may in fact be easier. Except if there was copyrightviolation, which apparently there was. You may restart the article in userspace, draftspace. It you are WP:BOLD you may re-create it in mainspace, except, as I see there was editwarring and the page is protected, which means you need to restart the page in draftspace or userspace. Without a draft to look at, there is really nothing DRV can do. Make a draft and show us that the subject is now notable. Advice on how to do that is in WP:THREE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - A draft was submitted for review, which has not changed much; and I declined it as not establishing acting notability. As I have said in declining the draft, if the proponent wants to resubmit, they will need to expand the biography, if there are other achievements to include. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No action. The deletion reasons identified in the most recent AFD have not been overcome, and edit-warring is not an appropriate way to handle a disagreement with a consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent discussions

8 April 2021

Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame)

Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe there was improper closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) (2nd nomination). For reference, this was the page before closure: For several reasons, I believe the closure was too hasty and with an incorrect outcome, hence I would like to revert it. I left this message on the closing user's talk page but, they have since deleted it without addressing it and has gone silent. I have now waited a week, and hence I am now posting here. Here are my reasons:

  • The closure did not address the fact that Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) is notable under the policy WP:NBUILD, since it is listed as a historic structure in the NRHP and plenty of information on it is available (see below).[1][2] Per WP:NBUILD 'Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable'. Since Badin Hall is registered, it is covered under the policy.
  • The structure additionally passes WP:GNG given the amount of WP:SIGCOV (although, per NBUILD, SIGCOV is not required to meet notability in this case, but nonetheless it possesses it) as it has been pointed out by many users in the discussion. The closure did not address this, nor did it address why the closing user disagrees with the majority of users that it does pass. Regarding SIGCOV, has been pointed out by other users how indeed it had receieved significant and enduring coverage, particularly on the South Bend Tribune (including several full pafe piece profiles on the hall[3][4])[5]. Further, its construction[6][1][4], early history[6][7][4][8][9][10][11][12], its history as the oldest Catholic trade school in America[13][9], role in hosting the United States Naval Reserve Midshipmen's School[14][15], its role in hosting the first women at Notre Dame[16][17][18], and its recent history and traditions[19][20][5][21][22] have been amply described in independent sources.
  • The user's closing statement did not address the consensus (which was not obvious) nor did it address the fact that the majority of users commenting voted to keep the page. While WP is not a democracy, a proper closing statement that going against the opinion of the majority of users should address at the very least this fact and give reasons why those votes should not be listened to, and the closure did neither.
  • The user did not address the consensus (which was not obvious to participants) and which I argue was to keep, in line with the points above and with the majority of the user' opinions.
  • The user closed the RfC before the default time period without giving a specific reason, especially given the fact that the discussion was still ongoing and the last contributions (which was a keep opinion) came less than 24 hours from the closure.
  • The user has similarly hastily closed two other discussions: [1] and [2]. I believe all three closures should be reverted.
  • I left this message on the closing user's page a week ago, but they have since deleted it without addressing it and gone silent.

Hence, I'd like to revert the closure and let the discussion continue or change the outcome. Eccekevin (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b Charleton, James H. (1986). Recreation in the United States: National Historic Landmark Theme Study. National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
  2. ^ James T. Burtchaell (November 1976). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: University of Notre Dame Campus-Main and South Quadrangles" (PDF). Indiana State Historic Architectural and Archaeological Research Database and National Park Service. Retrieved October 18, 2017. With seven photos from 1972-76. Map of district included with text version available at National Park Service.
  3. ^ Carrico, Patrick (12 May 1954). "Famed Bog distinguished Badin Hall at Notre Dame". South Bend Tribune. p. 24.
  4. ^ a b c Neil, Rau (11 October 1930). "ND Halls tell how place grew - Badin Hall built in 1917". South Bend Tribune.
  5. ^ a b "Notre Dame cafe established in Badin Hall". South Bend Tribune. 3 October 1917. p. 7.
  6. ^ a b "Badin Hall". The Catholic Tribune. October 13, 1917. p. 2.
  7. ^ "Badin Hall, the newest hall at Notre Dame". The Catholic Advance. 29 December 1917. p. 3.
  8. ^ Alerding, Herman Joseph (1888). A History of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Vincennes. author.
  9. ^ a b "New Badin Hall named after first priest in America". The Irish Standard. 22 December 1917. p. 1.
  10. ^ Stoll, John B. (1923). An Account of St. Joseph County from Its Organization ... Dayton Historical Publising Company. p. 124.
  11. ^ "Chemistry and Badin Halls will be erected before fall opening". South Bend News-Times. 26 May 1917. p. 1.
  12. ^ Howard, Timothy Edward (1907). A History of St. Joseph County, Indiana. Lewis publishing Company.
  13. ^ "The Diocese of Fort Wayne, 1857-September 1907". Retrieved 2021-03-15.
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference :02 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Moses, First Down (2013-10-31). "Notre Dame and Navy: Why We Play, Part 1". One Foot Down. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
  16. ^ Sulok, Nancy (March 7, 1973). "Notre Dame May Face Housing Shortage Because of Coeds". South Bend Tribune. p. 20.
  17. ^ "Notre Dame Enrollment Estimated To Be 8,750". The Herald, Jasper Indiana. July 24, 1973. p. 11.
  18. ^ "Coed enrollment with double at Notre Dame". Daily Journal (Franklin, Indiana). August 16, 1973. p. 9.
  19. ^ Blasko, Erin (February 14, 2010). "A cold plunge". South Bend Tribune. p. B1.
  20. ^ Wallace, Francis (1969). Notre Dame: Its People and Its Legends. D. McKay Company.
  21. ^ Kltisch, Kristi (February 21, 1999). "New store preserves tradition, Hammes name". South Bend Tribune. p. SS6.
  22. ^ Mezzacappa, Gabriella (2016-02-02). "Students respond in outrage over residential hall moves". The Tab. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
  • There is a lot to read here. Could you please provide the best 3 or 4 sources for meeting WP:GNG? You've provided a lot of sources, but a quick look didn't show anything that was very in-depth other than from the South Bend Tribune (which isn't ideal as it's a very local paper). Hobit (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • So let's take those points in the order in which the nominator raises them.
  1. Notable under the policy WP:NBUILD. NBUILD isn't policy and doesn't bind the closer. NBUILD is clearly labelled as a guideline. The relevant limb of NBUILD is the second, which tells us that buildings may be notable if they have significant independent coverage. I think we've got the rules right there:- our rules should allow us to have articles on buildings such as Buckingham Palace or the Taj Mahal, and they should not allow us to have an article about my local fire station. In this case, the discussion focused closely on NBUILD but consisted mainly of long, scattershot lists of sources and opinion statements: "I think this building passes" because of all the sources. I don't see an in-depth analysis of the sources and references. This leaves the closer in the invidious position of having to form their own judgment without much help from the community. I would be intrigued to read Spartaz' description of his thought processes on this. I see there's a notice on his talk page indicating that he's ragequit the project, but Spartaz does that from time to time and, so far, he has always returned. I reserve judgment until he weighs in, but my initial impression here is that on this point, the close isn't obviously wrong.
  2. Passes the GNG. Much like the previous point. Lists of sources and opinion statements, little analysis, no evidence of anyone in the discussion changing their view based on the evidence presented. Close needs some elaboration, but isn't obviously wrong.
  3. Inadequate closing statement. I agree that this close would have benefitted from a more in-depth explanation and I can understand why the nominator finds it hard to parse. I expect that a more in-depth explanation will emerge here, and, subject to what Spartaz says when he reads this, I hope that one of the outcomes of this DRV will be for the closing statement to be expanded.
  4. User didn't address the consensus. I have been unable to distinguish this point from the previous one. How was Spartaz expected to address the consensus except by means of his closing statement?
  5. Closed early. This discussion was not closed early. I think the nominator may be confusing request for comment, which run for at least 30 days, with articles for deletion, which run for 7 days. This was the latter, and there is clearly no closer error on this point.
  6. Closed other discussions early. No, this is wrong, as previously stated.
  7. Didn't reply on his talk page. Yes: Spartaz is required to explain his closes on his talk page when he makes them, and yes, that is policy. This is a closer error that can only be remedied by Spartaz' engagement in this discussion. I expect he will, but if he doesn't, and the user remains unsatisfied, then we have little choice but to relist the debate for someone else to close.
  • In short, despite that long nomination, it's a matter that DRV should be able to deal with quickly and simply.—S Marshall T/C 10:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Spartaz's talk page implies they are either on a wikibreak or have left the project completely. While they should have responded, not responding to an AfD close isn't grounds for vacating the close, as far as I'm aware. (As an aside, I participated in the AfD, saw this was closed as a redirect, thought that was the absolute correct result, and knew, based on the discussion, that it would go to DRV.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I accidentally skipped over your first point, you've addressed Spartaz's wikibreak, my apologies. SportingFlyer T·C 17:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Overturn to Relist:
      • This is an unpleasant Deletion Review. Both the close and the appeal are troublesome.
      • This appeal, at 873 words, is too long for either an AFD statement or a DRV statement. This statement is re-arguing, and is too long for an argument, a re-argument, or a statement of an error.
      • By agreeing very briefly with one Redirect statement, the closer essentially disregarded all of the Keep statements without addressing them adequately, which amounted to a supervote.
      • At this point, the best action is to Relist.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedy relist WP:NBUILD is normative, and really the idea that a building on the National Registry of Historic Places would be NN for Wikipedia purposes fails to pass the common-sense test: No NRHP place exists that doesn't have SIGCOV somewhere even if we can't find it, and WP:NEXIST. Spartaz' taking a wikibreak relatively soon after a controversial close that has been challenged on his talk page, albeit in some respects erroneously, by the DRV requestor, without replying or even acknowledging it is an WP:ADMINACCT violation, and it's reasonable to expect that a challenged, undefended admin action will be speedily overturned. Had the DRV requestor stuck to a shorter, better targeted request, the two key problems here would have shone through the inadvertent textwall. On Wikipedia, people have a short attention span, so the more you write, the less likely you are to make your case. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I feel like I'm re-litigating the AfD here, but the NRHP didn't list the building but rather the area: the entirety of the NRHP coverage of this building was not much more than a sentence. SportingFlyer T·C 11:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Check out ref 1, p. 119, above. Jclemens (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
That’s a simple description of its dimensions etc and isn’t enough for NBUILD. Not every NRHP structure is notable, there is only a presumption of notability, which can be refuted by an demonstrated lack of SIGCOV e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian County Road 4G Bridge --Pontificalibus 15:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
It is specifically listed as a ‘’’historic structure’’’ by the NHRP. Also, there are several articles about it listed above, that describe its history and structure. It’s history is very well documented by independent sources. Eccekevin (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Pontificalibus, I impeached SportingFlyer's assertion. If you have a further assertion, you might want to make sure it's not lost in a thread that started somewhere else... Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, I was simultaneously refuting your "speedy relist" rationale that no NRHP place exists that doesn't have SIGCOV somewhere, and also supporting SportingFlyers' contention that ref 1, p. 119 is "not much more than a sentence". A relist based on a lack of consensus seem fine, but I can't stomach one that relies on waving at WP:NEXIST. ----Pontificalibus 07:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse and deny request as not in scope for DRV. There was no deletion or pseudodeletion. A consensus to reverse the redirect decision should be developed and established at the talk page of the redirect target. Continue at Talk:University of Notre Dame residence halls#merge from Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    To the extent that an admin said "Community consensus says this must be redirected" it is absolutely in scope for DRV. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    DRV can review the close, true. I endorse the closers “redirect”. However, that decision does not have permanence. WP:CCC, and not the least that new information may be found. What is not in scope is DRV continuing to manage the question, the proper page for that is the target talk page. The question being presented here at DRV is so messy, unfocused, that DRV is obviously not the right forum. A talk page thread is the right forum. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't disagree that everything is a mess, nor that the talk page is the proper and clearly better place to assess whether a redirect/merge or separate article is warranted. My only concern is that an AfD with a redirect close becomes a status quo to overcome, and I believe, based on the problems we've illustrated with the close, that such a status quo is a poor place from which to start an equitable and unbiased discussion. Overturning to no consensus would allow anyone to revert the redirection and prompt that discussion. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Maybe if I !voted "Endorse as correct at the time, but now defer the question of "keep redirected" or "revert the redirect", to a talk page decision, at Talk:University of Notre Dame residence halls. The AfD was correctly closed as not-delete, and "redirect" was not unreasonable, but now that deletion is off the table, it should not be sent back to AfD. Is there someone who says "Community consensus says this must be redirected"? If there is, I will argue with them, starting with WP:CCC, but on the other hand, someone needs to concisely state what has changed. I am not convinced that anything has changed. Also, another reason for this to be sent to the parent article talk page is that the issue is not particular to this hall, but generalises to them all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    On further reading, I am disturbed by the inconsistency with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keenan Hall. I am unimpressed with appeals to WP:NBUILD. Maybe "overturn to no consensus and refer the stand alone child articles of University of Notre Dame residence halls to an RfC". It is a structurism question, not a deletion question, and so it is not suitable for a forced resolution via the deletion process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Then we are substantially, even if not semantically, in agreement. Par for the course in a place that doesn't have hard and fast rules. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    I might go with an "endorse and refer the stand alone child articles to an RfC." We should definitely have the information somewhere, but there's a clear question as to how to structure the information, and the halls are individually only marginally notable, and since this is a redirect, it's easily overturned pending the result of the RfC. However, I did think it should be redirected. SportingFlyer T·C 12:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Overturn (to no consensus) and recommend an RfC on whether the halls generally should have separate articles. The result should be consistent, or a consistent criteria, across the set of halls. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Part of a historic district is not notability , for it is increasingly applied to the entire older and downtown areas of all cities. Every house on my block and the surrounding blocks is in the historic district, thought most, including mine are not even mentioned specifically in the report, and only one or two buildings in it are actually separately on the schedule. Old is not the same as notable, if there is no other distinction. And here, as usual, almost all the references are to local and campus sources, which write about every building on a campus indiscriminately. There's an excellent place to include the information, which is the college's web site. There's nothing really wrong with redirection--there's nothing intrinsically wrong with redirecting every building on a campus, but even this is getting close to indiscriminate. And also to NOT DIRECTORY DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
This case is different than your house, since the district is quite small and Badin Hall is explicitly listed and described as historic structure, (and is separate, as you point out only two houses in your district are) and in addition there are many sources on it on various newspapers and other media, as outlined in the article itself. Hence, as NP:BUILD points out, this qualifies it as notable. This building is not simply 'old;' aas you state, but it hosted the oldest Catholic trade school in America, it hosted the V-7 United States Naval Reserve Midshipmen's School, and it was the first hall to host women at Notre Dame, so it definitely has different claims to notability, not just its age. Eccekevin (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse: I find myself in complete agreement with DGG. Old does not equal notability and this fails SIGCOV. --Randykitty (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
No one claimed its age is the only thing making it notable. Eccekevin (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

6 April 2021

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

I am asking for this discussion to be relisted along with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trofeo Spagnolo. Articles in the Italian language version of this article as well as a simple web search demonstrate that the competition passes WP:GNG, such as [3] [4] [5] (not significant coverage, but shows the tournament was treated seriously after the fact). The sources are generally pre-internet Italian, so another week or two to look would be appreciated, especially given it appears the closer substituted their own judgement when closing these discussions (see their response to me. SportingFlyer T·C 11:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment as closing admin As closing admin, I am noting that DRV is not the place to ask for discussions to be reopened post the event. SportingFlyer is talking disingenuously here. During the Memorial Mario Cecchi Gori AfD he noted the Italian version of the article has sources that could indicate GNG. There was no appetite from any editor to discuss them and he was the only keep vote. Furthermore the keep vote argument is in itself very weak as it merely states there are foreign language sources without indicating which ones showed GNG and how. The special pleading that as this is an article about things that occurred a few decades ago is somehow a reason to extend an AfD as a matter of course is not supported by any guideline. This editor is now trying to present new sources (without attributing them to either of the AfDs in question) which may or may not show GNG outside of the AFD. DRV is not the place for this. I don't believe there was anything wrong with the closure of the AfD based on the weakness of the sole keep vote.
Regarding the Trofeo Spagnolo SportingFlyer tried to claim that the Italian wiki article had sources which satisfied GNG, this was clearly false as all the sources within that article are primary sources from the website of one of the competing clubs. I don't believe there was anything wrong with the closure of this AfD based on that being the sole keep vote. Fenix down (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
It was an AfD with three users, of which the entire discussion for deleting the article was a grand total of six words, and yet you found consensus. That's a clear error per DRV purpose #1. Not sure why you think it's disingenuous. SportingFlyer T·C 12:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
That's what happens when someone says an article is not notable, if people can't find sources, they say, "yes, that's not notable". What are you expecting? What's disingenuous, with the trofeo Spagnolo AfD for example, is you claim the Italian article has sources that support GNG without saying how or why, when these are all primary sources from a competing club's website. I assume this was an error on your part as none f these can count towards GNG. therefore as an error your argument had no weight, therefore the article was unanimously for deletion, therefore deletion occurred. If you think there are new sources, can you please provide more detail as to how they contribute to GNG for either of the articles in question. That is at least a discussion that can be had here if new information has come to light but at the moment, none was presented in the AfDs that clearly showed GNG, that massively reduces the strength of your arguments. Even here, you have dropped in a few references but haven't said to which of the AfDs they refer and what is in them that shows GNG sufficient to warrant a relist. Seriously, I can't do your work for you. You can't say there are sources elsewhere, be completely non-specific about them, provide no supporting detail and expect your rationale to carry any real weight. It would be useful here if you could start by taking the three sources above, listing them out and then provide quotes / narrative which explains how they help support GNG. If there is something there then one or both of them can be reopened for further discussion, but I'm not going to reopen an AfD just because you drop a couple of links in. Fenix down (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
It goes both ways. Nobody in either of these discussions mentioned why the article failed WP:GNG. The English language ones did because of sourcing, but the nominator did "drive-by" AfDs on a number of friendly tournaments with two-word nominations without any evidence they did any sort of WP:BEFORE search. There are sources to support these articles, but there can't be a discussion about them in the proper location because you closed the AfDs too soon. SportingFlyer T·C 14:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
But it just doesn't. the problem is how do you prove a negative. someone nominates an article for deletion and says fails GNG. Someone else then has quick search and finds nothing and votes delete per nom and so on and so forth. What else are they meant to say. If someone votes delete or says an article is not notable we assume they have had a look and are satisfied that the article fails GNG. For you then to come in at the last minute and say, there are sources in the Italian article therefore this article must be notable (especially when in one of the articles here that was demonstrably untrue with them all clearly being primary sources) without saying why is not an argument to extend an AfD because there is nothing of note in your comment to discuss. As I noted before, it would be a useful start here for you to list the three sources you added up there, note to which AfD they apply and comment on what they say and why this makes the subject notable. That could well indicate new sources which would warrant the AfD being reopened. It would be much better if you concentrated on the sources rather than the process. Fenix down (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
You can't prove a negative but you can go a long way to show you tried e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benito, California - such properly argued delete votes carry far more weight than "Fails GNG" which really should be almost entirely disregarded if there are any sources later bought to the discussion.----Pontificalibus 12:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse Both, noting:
      • The closing administrator was a little harsh in saying that the appellant was being 'disingenuous', but the appellant is an experienced editor who does appear to have been watching the clock.
      • The appellant was doing a handwave as time ran out in saying that there are Italian sources without either adding the sources or requesting a relist in order to add the sources.
      • The appellant could have added the Italian sources and said "Hey", Hey, but didn't.
      • Is there a past history between User:SportingFlyer and User:Fenix down? If not, let's not create one.
      • The appellant should be allowed to Re-Create Both in Draft space.
      • The appellant is reminded that watching the clock and waving the hands as the AFD is about to be closed does look disingenuous.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I don't appreciate the accusation that I was "clock-watching," I didn't even look to see how much longer the AfD had to run, and I discovered it was open when I made my !vote. SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Relist the Memorial Mario Cecchi Gori discussion had three participants, one of whom supported keeping the article and it was closed hours after the Keep comment was posted. Relisting was arguably the best course of action anyway as the participation was minimal, it wasn't unanimous, and the OP raised a new argument just before closure. The other discussion was similar. Hut 8.5 20:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse. The closer was given a very poor discussion on which to base their close and, although I think a soft delete, no consensus or relist would have been preferable, I think delete was just about within discretion. The closer should not be basing their close on their own evaluation of the adequacy of sources – I will make the assumption that the evaluation here was only done after the close had been decided upon. However, I think all that should be of little concern to Sporting. If following this DRV the deletion holds, simply create a new article with the new references and relevant material. I suggest avoiding the minefield of draft space and recreate in main space (possibly after drafting in userspace). WP:G4 would not apply. The article would be liable to AFD, which all articles are anyway. I've no idea how football fans react to such recreations. FWIW the Italian article is at Memorial Mario Cecchi Gori. Thincat (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • If deletion holds, a WP:REFUND to draftspace or my userspace would be greatly appreciated. SportingFlyer T·C 21:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I have no objections to restoring to your draftspace, especially if you think the sources you have found meet gng and you are willing to go through AfC for independent assessment before moving to mainspace, my only objection here is that the vague pointing to other sources without any attempt to be clear on how they help meet gng is an acceptable reason to relist when you are the only keep voter. Fenix down (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A) AfC should never be a required process. It's just too much of a hot mess and isn't designed to be a required process. B) The !votes to delete were even worse. No comments on sources, no hint if they did a search, nothing. Hobit (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Relist Closing an AfD on 2:1 is reasonable when the two have the stronger argument, but in this case, the lone editor opposing had the stronger argument. Contra Robert McClenon, WP:NEXIST is normative, and there is no particular value add to copying in sources from the Italian article: mentioning that they exist there is sufficient to include them by reference. I'm sure we all can prefix with "it:" with minimal effort. Closing as no consensus would have been reasonable but likely premature; closing as keep is about the same level as closing as delete--premature based on the state of the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • relist that discussion didn't have anything close to consensus. The !vote and the nom to delete were basically worthless. The !vote to keep was, frankly, something of a vaguewave. But there isn't consensus to be found here. If it had already been relisted twice, I'd probably endorse a deletion outcome, though WP:SOFTDELETE would probably be a better outcome. As it stands, it should have been relisted. Hobit (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm less sure on Trofeo Spagnolo but think it too would have been best to relist. Call that one weak overturn to relist. Hobit (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Relist If specific sources are pointed at in this way (not a vague "there should be sources somewhere"), a relist with an invitation to assess them is surely warranted in order to find consensus - especially if none of the delete votes indicated that they'd looked for sources beyond those already in the article.----Pontificalibus 11:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Relist both - both AfDs could do with input from more editors and a discussion around sources available or of attempts made to find such sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn (relist). The late “keep” !vote needed to be challenged or rebuffed, but summary rejection by the closer is a WP:Supervote. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Similarly Overturn (relist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trofeo Spagnolo, as the closer introduces new facts (ascribing all article sources as primary), which no participant did, and this makes it a WP:Supervote. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 April 2021

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

This page has been nominated for deletion twice over the course of a month (which by itself cuts close to WP:LASTTIME) and both times, the stated reason was that there was no secondary sources in the article. When I became aware of this problem I edited the article and added a substantial number of secondary sources. My understanding per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS is that If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, that argument is no longer relevant. Perhaps my error was I did not notify everyone in the deletion discussion that this update had occurred. However, the person who had initially nominated the article for deletion did clearly notice the additions because that user removed one of my sources (which again I thought was not proper during the deletion process but I cant find the policy at the moment). At the very least, I had assumed the closing admin would review the article and see that the issue had been rectified, per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure but on a subsequent discussion on that user's talk page, it seems a review of the actual article did not occur prior to the decision to delete (User_talk:Seraphimblade#George_Leef_deletion_explanation).

Thank you for your consideration. Nweil (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse but allow re-creation in draft with the secondary sources:
      • It appears that the appellant is saying that they improved the article to where it should have been a Heymann Keep, but that the closer only assessed the statements and did not re-review the article. This may raise a question about how an author should request special attention for a Heymann improvement. As it is, there was no error by the closer, and the author should be allowed to submit a new draft with the sources.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment The AfD discussion looks reasonable to me (on its own terms) and the close likewise. However, if you submit a new draft with your new sources, the draft is still vulnerable to WP:G4 speedy deletion. Could we have a temporary undeletion so DRV has the chance to say whether in its enhanced state the article should not be liable for G4 deletion? To require yet further explicit improvement may be unreasonable. Thincat (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse - First, the idea that the article was nominated for deletion twice over the course of a month is simply false - there is and has been only one AFD discussion for this article. The article was deleted through PROD and then WP:REFUNDed, but that does not constitute a nomination for deletion - the OP certainly had a right to request undeletion, but undoing an uncontroversial deletion is explicitly not a judgment on the article's merits. As to the merits: the secondary sources provided still failed WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF, as the !voters made clear. The sources available simply don't allow the creation of an encyclopedic biography of this person. For example, the sum total of one proffered secondary source is As commentator George Leef remarked in a recent analysis in Forbes - the textbook definition of a passing mention. Another proffered source is similar: George Leef wrote for the National Review, and another - many vocal and influential public figures, such as ... George Leef. These are all passing mentions, and what is required is significant coverage, defined as sources which address the subject directly in detail. There aren't any. They don't exist. We simply don't have any sources which address the subject directly in detail, so we can't write a biography of this person. It's not some sort of value judgment about them - it's a simple lack of reliable sources to base a biography upon. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is an example of independent, reliable and significant scholarly coverage of Leef's concepts which I brought up in the AFD discussion and no one has rebutted to date. Furthermore, Leef's concepts have been cited in testimonies before state and federal legislative bodies (1 2) and he himself has testified before them as an expert (3). Apologies for not using the correct term for the two different deletion processes but I am still learning the lingo around here. The subject here does suffer from being the middle of two or three different notability types (academic, author, journalist) but there is no doubt he is widely cited by his peers. Nweil (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus NorthBySouthBaranof's editing the article to remove sources during the deletion discussion, such as here, and here, after nominating the article for deletion, was inappropriate and should not be rewarded. If an editor wants to trim an article, fine. If editor wants to nominate an article for deletion, also fine. But the act of trimming sources, even arguably primary ones and trivial mentions, after that editor had nominated the article for deletion and while the deletion discussion is underway, is a party foul of the first order. AfD can sort through puffery and such, and does so all the time. I believe the discussion to have been irrevocably tainted such that a new AfD is in order. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • An article written by the president of the organization that Leef works for is patently not an independent reliable source. It's a primary source for anything about Leef. Similarly, PR biographical blurbs written by organizations Leef worked for are also not reliable secondary sources. There is nothing arguable about it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • While primary, and thus not counting for WP:N, those sources can be used. "Yanking" a source for no (given) reason other than not being independent isn't really a good idea.
  • (not sure whom the above comment was by, but it wasn't me) I agree with the above unsigned comment. The issue isn't the editing, but the timing, that of doing so during a running AfD such that editors taking a cursory look at the article don't see the sources the nom removed. At AfD, the defenders of the article should be allowed--and encouraged!--unfettered access with which to improve the article by adding sources. If the sources suck, it gets deleted. If they find good sources, it gets kept, unless they also find and add too many bad sources such that the good sources get buried among the chaff. It's a matter of common courtesy, encourages article defenders to spend more time adding sources than arguing pointlessly, and improves--at least marginally--the article for the duration of the AfD, even if it is ultimately deleted as non-notable. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse Doesn't seem to meet any particular part of WP:PROF. Doesn't seem to meet the GNG. I'm not happy with anyone in the edits to the article during the DRV (some sources added that don't help with the GNG while claiming they do at AfD, removing a source and a workplace for what I'd say were ticky-tacky reasons), but at the end of the day, that doesn't really change that no one really made a believable claim that any inclusion guideline is met. Given the !vote this is a reasonable delete outcome. Hobit (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse, but encourage draftification. It’s a close case this one, and just another good source or two could get it over the line. Encourage following the advice at WP:THREE, lots of weak sources are not effective at reversing the deletion decision, and they make the review process harder. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus I think we need a new AfD for the reasons presented by Jclemens. Tillander 09:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Hobit and NorthBySouthBaranof. The process worked fine. 'Twas a good close. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a contributor to the AfD. The source listed above by Nweil was discussed in more than one comment at the AfD, so the claim that the discussion and close ignored this newly-found source does not hold water. Also Nweil's claim to have been the one to bring up that source is false; Nweil mentioned it only in passing in a comment at the end of the AfD, but the same source was brought up earlier by hroest ("Only [1] this review, actually.") and discussed in my comment. I can't speak for the other contributors, but my contribution there was based primarily on external searching, not on the contents of the article in its version at the time of the discussion, so changes there (other than the addition of GNG-compliant sources beyond what my searches found, which didn't happen) would have had little or no effect on my decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse but if anyone wants to recreate the article I don't think WP:G4 speedy deletion can be applied. During the discussion there was so much churn to the article that no particular version can be said to be the version deleted and so "substantially identical to the deleted version" has no unambiguous meaning. Thincat (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse I think that's a pretty clear delete AfD, and while it probably could have been defensibly closed as no consensus, delete is a significantly better option. In terms of WP:G4, we should look at the version of the article which was sent to AfD when applying it. SportingFlyer T·C 12:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 April 2021

Draft:Revature (closed)

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

This page was speedily deleted (by username QueerEcofeminist) a few hours after I posted it yesterday. In accordance with policy WP:COI, I disclosed my affiliation to the subject (a company) and placed the page in draft, hoping that another editor would review it for objectivity.

The page seems to have been speedily deleted because I made the COI disclosure. That is not one of the grounds for speedy deletion. In fact, if it were, it would make no sense for policy WP:COI to exist at all.

The only potentially valid ground for speedy deletion is G11, "pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles." This page passes the test, for a number of reasons.

1. The language used is not promotional.

2. Every effort has been made to write the article from as objective a point of view as possible. For example, it includes prominent reference to an article that describes the company's business model as "indentured servitude." Having said that, I understand that I have a COI, which is precisely why I disclosed the COI in advance and submitted the page in draft for review.

3. As to notability: The company has trained more than 7,000 computer programmers, has pioneered an unusual business model, counts major companies among its clients, and has been written up in at least two national newspapers (the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal).

4. As to the use of independent sources: The page cites articles from the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Medium's OneZero, all of which give Revature prominent coverage (some positive, some negative).

In view of the above, I request that, instead of summary deletion, the page be reinstated in draft and thoroughly reviewed. AJWilson82 (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Article temporarily undeleted for the DRV. Daniel (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn The Medium (website) reference is quite unflattering, and torpedoes a presumption of promotion needed to sustain G11. May not be notable, may be overall too promotional, but it earns a discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn G11 and allow review of draft, which needs declining. If I saw the page in article space, I would probably draftify it rather than tagging it for speedy deletion. Appellant should understand that there is no guarantee that the draft will ever be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The draft certainly could be written a bit more objectively, but it isn't nearly so hopelessly promotional as to merit a G11, particularly under the more lax standards applicable in draft-space. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Overturn Since it's in draft space and there is a tinge of neutrality to it. I'm not sure the company qualifies for a Wikipedia article on NCORP grounds and maybe PROMO grounds and there are far too many primary sources in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 12:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Zeyan Shafiq (closed)

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

Hi, I've discussed it in detail with admin Barkeep49 on his Talk Page here, and he guided me to post it here to obtain the permissions to be able to recreate it.
After researching and reading the AfD discussion thoroughly, It is clear that Shafiq's article has had promotional and advertising tone, And the Author/Editor (Hum4r) has been clearly violating the wikipedia policies. He's an confirmed sockmaster and has abused the multiple account policy so the reason stated by the nominator of AfD was correct. I Don't know about the earlier version of this article hence i have no idea about the promotional tone used on that article. After reading all the policies i do believe that i can work on the issues addressed at the Shafiq’s AfD. As per my research, i think if Shafiq’s article is written in an NPOV it will meet WP:GNG WP:BASIC and will be suitable for wikipedia. It does have multiple reliable sources as per WP:RS it’s just it requires to be written in a proper tone. I'd like to present these sources:-

Many issues addressed in the AfD could've been resolved by working on the page but unfortunately it was completely stormed and messed up by (Hums4r) and his Sockpuppet/SPA group.
I am completely aware of the COI i have with this subject. I will declare it once i have the permission for working on the article. So i'm here looking to obtain the permission to work on the article from scratch. Also I’d make sure the article goes through the AfC process before going live in the main space so that it’s peerly reviewed by an AfC reviewer.
Warm Regards--Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 17:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Lucky - Coagulans (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Coagulans, oh great. Thanks for this. I’d rather prefer re writing it from scratch to put it as a NPOV. I’m putting this here to obtain permission as guided by Barkeep on his talk page. -Warm Regards--Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 19:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, and Disallow request to re-create in draft. The appellant's client first tried to cheat, and got caught, and so now wants to play by the rules, without a penalty. Granting this request to re-create a draft will establish a precedent that dishonest advertisers, rather than playing by the rules, will first cheat, and, then, if caught, will hire a clean paid editor. That would not be a good precedent. Recommend ECP SALT in both draft space and article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Robert McClenon, while I respect your POV and the endorse comment, I couldn’t understand this part The appellant's client first tried to cheat, and got caught, and so now wants to play by the rules, without a penalty. It was the author of the article (hums4r) who was caught for sock puppetry, he tried to create articles on himself and was blocked for cross wiki spam and abusing multiple accounts. At first, I don’t understand how is Shafiq involved with hums4r’s actions, second I’ve posted it here to request for permissions i-e following the rules duly. If I don’t get the permissions, I won’t re-create it. Thanks Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 07:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Appellant's Comment: As written in Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Creation_protection To make a convincing case for re-creation, it is helpful to show a draft version of the intended article when filing a request. I've created this Draft:Zeyan Shafiq Draft Version as per the format of above shared web archive version by Coagulans. I've trimmed promotional things like being called as Mark Zuckerberg and added about the controversies, also written how he was labelled as threat to the security and removed the part where it was mentioned that he promoted india in esports, also mentioned that Kashbook was a copy of facebook. I've tried my best to remove all the promotional content but it might still exist. Do let me know and i'll be happy to assist on that. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 21:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse the AfD, it's clear delete was a correct and proper outcome. I don't have any issue if this is recreated through AfC, but that AfD discussion was so promotional and spammy that I have some trepidation about suggesting I don't have any issue. SportingFlyer T·C 12:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse close, salt the article. Also see Draft talk:Zeyan Shafiq. I don't know why we're tolerating Abhayesports, who is obviously only promoting Shafiq. I would block him myself, but I'm too involved. Fences&Windows 20:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
You’re threatening me with a block on what grounds? For that i pinged you in the discussion only for stating the reply you made in Shafiq’s AfD? , I’m obviously promoting shafiq? I didn’t even do that once, if you can share where I’ve promoted him you are free to block me. Infact, I’ve trimmed and removed the promotional content from the draft, I’ve made it neutral. I have always duly followed wikipedia’s protocol for anything related to cases that i have a COI with, check my history. I’ve never violated wikipedia’s single policy. And as far as the sock puppetry accusation is considered I’m shocked that an old experienced editor like you should have an idea that this is not the correct venue, you are free to file 100 cases but until then, it’s a request kindly talk respectfully. I do completely respect your choice of not having the article on Wikipedia, i have no issues with your choice and no grudges against you, and I’d request the same from you to hold no grudges against me and to not blame me for anything someone else has done.Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 00:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Abhayesports' assertion above about the book published by OUP seems, at best, to be an exaggeration. I can't read the whole chapter, but from what I've been able to access it appears to be about internet outages in Kashmir. Zeyan_Shafiq was interviewed by the author and is mentioned a few times in the chapter, but to say that the chapter is about him is not true. This assertion is repeated in the current version of the draft article. I am concerned that a paid editor such as Abhayesports would make an assertion of this nature about the founder of the company that employs them, particularly since they have since admitted they know the chapter isn't about him. GirthSummit (blether) 11:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Girth Summit as discussed on the talk page, i did write it incorrectly but my intention was never to exaggerate facts, after you told me, I’ve corrected it at both the places. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 12:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I have reinstated your original statement, stricken through, so that other people reviewing this thread can see what we are talking about here. Your revised statement is now more accurate. GirthSummit (blether) 13:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Note:- I’m the appealant and I’d request for the closure of this DRV because at the time of filing this DRV i knew that the earlier article was deleted due to promotional tone and maybe lack of Reliable Sources but later after having conversation with GirthSummit i came to know that the sources I presented were already discussed at the AfD. So I’d work on it in the future maybe if Shafiq recieves has any new Reliable Source and accordingly request the review at that time because at this moment it makes no sense in wasting the reviewers time. Thank you.Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 18:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC) ← Body of the discussion stays unchanged

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

Category:Mononymous people

Category:Mononymous people (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Unsubstantiated list vs category comments. This category is not by far just "a copy of List of one-word stage names", there are a lot of mononymous real names (see my reverted edits). And surely it won't be "an empty category". Lists (articles) and categories can coexist, both are different things. And "sourced"? Really? - Coagulans (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Your list of reverted edits include a large number of people who do have one-word stage names. Endorse deletion per Wikipedia:Overcategorization: "Avoid categorizing by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself." and "Avoid categorizing topics by characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability." DrKay (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Delete as a copy of an existing article" is not an appropriate or reasonable closing statement for a CfD. Per WP:CLN, where we can have a list (in this case List of legally mononymous people), it's always appropriate to have a category. If in this case the local consensus is overruling WP:CLN, then the CfD close should say so and explain why. Even if "delete" is the eventual outcome of this matter (and I'm agnostic about whether it should be), this close requires to be rewritten.—S Marshall T/C 09:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    WP:CLN says "At the same time, there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia. For instance, the guideline on overcategorization sets out a number of situations in which consensus has consistently determined that categories should not be used. A regularly occurring outcome at WP:CFD for some deleted categories is to listify, because there are cases where lists are appropriate while categories may not be", I can't read that as compatiable with your statement that it's always appropriate or that there is a need for some specific justification. -- (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
"Your list of reverted edits include a large number of people who do have one-word stage names" (DrKay). More precisely: 47/113. An instructive and catchy category, in my opinion. - Coagulans (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm reading the part of CLN at WP:NOTDUP, which is very longstanding wording. If another part of CLN contradicts this, then that's new to me.—S Marshall T/C
    WP:NOTDUP is not contradictory of the view, it's your apparent reading of it that having one makes the other always appropriate, which is not what NOTDUP says, which is merely that they aren't duplicative of each other - i.e. having one isn't a reason to remove the other, that is of course different from there may be good reasons to have one but not another. -- (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    And that's exactly why I think the closing statement is horribly wrong.—S Marshall T/C 00:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse - it was exactly a copy of a list article when brought to cfd, and as a category was empty. Oculi (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I don't know what the appellant wants anyway, and it should be the responsibility of the appellant to make a clear request. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Robert McClenon. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
My intuition-based DRV drew attention to some improperly argued delete votes - a list is not a substitute for a category.
A more experienced editor acquaintedly pointed out the issue: patently inappropriate closing statement, per WP:NOTDUP.
As for the outcome, I recommend Overturn and mass restore the reverted edits or Relist.
With some exceptions, being known and remembered mononymously is out of the ordinary, a rarely occurring situation, uncommonly encountered in the history of mankind, not at all "unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability".
Ultimately, if undeleted, it should be renamed to match the name of the parent article.
The suitable redirect being omitted, I wasn't notified while unknowingly recreating this category, hence all this mess ("disruptive editing"). - Coagulans (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
"The mononymous club keeps growing, but still remains exclusive" - Coagulans (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The problem with this "category" was that somebody out of apparent incompetence copied the contents of List of one-word stage names or something similar to this category page, which clearly is not what category pages are for; the CfD correctly recognized this. Sandstein 10:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


"Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative"

- Coagulans (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, incompetence. The category namespace is not supposed to contain manually composed content. Category pages are autogenerated. See WP:Categories. There may well be room for a list article about mononymous people, but such lists already exist in the correct namespace. Sandstein 18:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse, I can’t fault the close or the discussion. Mononymous person exists, and would be the parent article for the category. List of legally mononymous people seems quite different, modern examples versus historical and general. I think the question of scope is terribly unclear and would have to be resolved. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not skilled enough and not a native English speaker, I can't make it more clear than that. It seems to me that we are getting lost in a labyrinth of rules. I have in mind the French category. - Coagulans (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I think I see inconsistencies in that French Wikipedia category, and I don't think is it a good category. I don't think the rules are a labyrinth, although they are unintuitive to people new to the purpose of categories. Admittedly, the purpose of categories is disputed. What do you think is the purpose of categorising all mononymously named people? Is it to include stage names, nicknames, pseudonyms? What about ancient people who probably had more names, but they are lost? Can categories handle the subtlety? I think the case is lost given that every new pop star wants to claim a mononym. I have a lingering very old proposal: Only qualified category Wikipedians should be allowed to unilaterally create new categories. Categories serve a very limited purpose, CfD is constantly engaged with dealing with ill-considered mess. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Why all these intricacies instead of a straight forward criteria?
The purpose of the cited French category is to include the one word titled biography articles. - Coagulans (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
But why does you want to connect all one word titled biography articles? In the CfD that was criticised as WP:TRIVIALCAT. I suggest asking these questions at WT:CFD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
An editor hinted to that section in the initial discussion and, above, I expressed my opinion as to why I don't consider it as a trivial thing. But I must admit there is a trivialization tendency. - Coagulans (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't see that CFD as passing judgment on whether there should or shouldn't be a Category:Mononymous_people; the consensus was merely that the one that was created was not a valid category (in that it didn't actually categorize any articles) and instead just had the list article's content dumped into the category description page. I'm assuming that the category was empty? I agree with S Marshall that the closing statement was inartfully worded because it suggests the category merely covered the same topic as the list (usually what we mean when we're talking about category "duplication" of a list per WP:NOTDUP). Anyway, I don't think a recreation as an actual category is barred. postdlf (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

1 April 2021

Santosh Kumar Chaturvedi

Santosh Kumar Chaturvedi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The academic has multiple publication that are cited by 100+ people at Google Scholar which is enough to qualify WP:Academic Criteria 1. [6]. Scopus is here [7] and h index of 37 on google scholar and 24 at scopus. Perhaps all this information was not available to participants and hence they inclined to a weak delete. Bltv89 (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse - The close correctly summarizes consensus at AFD. Re-creation of a draft should be allowed, so that the appellant can include new sources and measures of academic notability. But closer was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse Looks to me like a close call on meeting WP:PROF, but there was no other way to close that discussion and it's not plainly mistaken. Hobit (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I see that the nominator hasn't advised the closer so I'll ping him. @Daniel:, when you closed that, were you aware that User:ImNotAnEntrepreneur who !voted to delete had been blocked for socking? Did you evaluate User:Espresso Addict's contribution as a "keep", and if so, what weight did you give it?—S Marshall T/C 09:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • (Closer) Hi Stuart, to answer your questions in order: no I didn't realise, but to be honest I didn't give their contribution a huge amount of weight based on its content (I did give it some small amount, however); and I did, albeit weakly, based on the word "might". I found JoelleJay's and Kichu's contributions the most persuasive in the debate, although as I noted in my close, it wasn't the strongest consensus of all time. If you need any further information, please let me know. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Daniel. I would differ from you slightly in that I would understand Espresso Addict's contribution, though phrased in very restrained language, as a clear "keep" backed by detailed analysis. Weighted that way and discounting the sock, I get to "no consensus" rather than "delete".—S Marshall T/C 11:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
        • FYI, when looking into this for DRV I didn't see any of those being claims as meeting WP:PROF. A looked at the first ones and they appear to be available to anyone qualified in the field who is willing to pay. I'm willing to be shown to be wrong, but I took the comment by EA to be a comment rather than a !vote because the aren't clearly over the bar @Espresso Addict:, could you clarify your intent? Hobit (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC) I wrote that in a rush and have edited it to be readable (I hope), sorry about that. Hobit (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 11:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I do agree that Espresso Addict's comment looks like a sort of weak keep, although it's worth noting that they qualified their comment with "might satisfy..." rather than a definite statement. Given that they haven't been back to qualify it, I think the analysis of the other two non-socks is worth sticking with. So overall the closer's assessment of this debate is correct. It's a weak delete. No prejudice against writing a new draft and seeing if that pushes it over the top though.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It looks harsh. On my personal rough guidline, an h-index < 20 means won't meet WP:PROF, and an h-index > 40 means will meet WP:PROF. (I know that User:DGG does not approve). The google scholar link says his h-index is 39, very high in the wide boundary zone. I recommend REFUNDing to draftspace (as offered in the close), and waiting, and working on specific criteria where he might have been overlooked for having met WP:PROF, or the GNG. Meeting WP:PROF means meeting the GNG is not required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
of course I don't approve of using h-index that way, because it gives absurd result For a biologist, If the h=20 means papers with 300, 275, 250, 245, 240, 235, 234, 233, 230, 225 220, 210, 200, 190, 180, 170, 160, 150, 50, 20 the person would be extremely notable. If the h=40 meant papers with 49, 49, 48, 48, 48, 48, 47, 47 ,47, 46 47, 46, 46, 46, 46 , 45, 45 ,45, 44, 44, 44, 43, 43 ,43, 43 , 42, 42, 42, 42, 42 , 42, 41, , 41, 41, 41, 41, 41, 40,40 ,40 then the person might just possible be notable as a productive minor scientist. Scientists are judged by how good their best work is not tby he amount of the minor work. . An entrepreneur who founded even one$10 billion copany would be notable; one swho founded 20 companies, noneof which ever were valued at more than 5 million, would not be. A politician who ran in one election, and was elected senator, is notable ; a politician who ran in 20, and never rose higher than dogcatcher, is not. *
I’ll stick with it though. NB, I consider it an initial indicator, not a deciding factor. I don’t believe that your productive minor scientist exists, that’s too improbable statistically. My enthusiasm for this indicator comes from checking professors with articles, it is a strong correlation, given the huge boundary region. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus' or keep. There was not consensus to delete, nor should there have been. I would certainly have wvoted keep, as a combination of researcher/administrator . The citations to his work is 193, 172, 169, 143 , 140, 125, 118, 107, 105. The general agreement here is that notability as a researcher is sufficiently shown by 2 or more papers with 100 or more citations each, and he meets it. The standard at WP:PROF is international, for science is international. If it is objected that some of these journals have lower standards, at least two of them are major international journals. Our normal practice for researchers is countries with less developed academic systems is to be relatively tolerant, not stricter than usual. That being shown, I find it extraordinary that the article was ever nominated for deletion. The nomination "None of the published work by the subject does not seems to have significant impact on the field" is blatantly in error. The 2nd !vote "While he's a bit above average in a few criteria in his field*, there's nothing demonstrating an exceptional career or scholarly impact." is also in error., The analysis below is not how academic notability is ever evaluatedd. It is the responsibility of a closer to take account only of statements that follow WP practice and guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus and thus keep (per DGG). This should have been left open for a longer discussion and was closed too early. Objectively, I would have voted keep since he has 9 papers with 100+ citations and passes WP:NPROF#1. --hroest 00:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

31 March 2021

Rt Rana (closed)

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

recently the page deleted from AFD , but iam not satisfied the AFD discussion because the article speedily deleted admin and previous 2016 AFD nominator at the same time this version came main space he put proposed deletion tag too , both are immediately voted for deletion as well as while afd was going some one changing vote, especially admin Cryptic vote changed by some one then he edit his votes please see the history . and someone behind the scene hard working for deleting this article, i think same team may be previous hacked his facebook . because they have disabled this article first and second reliable sources article came AFD two references are not working as well as while AFD was going time facebook hacked news removed from article , so that i did not vote but explain article notability for who was participating admin status . afd discussion - please dear gentleman kindly attention this case. thanking you Rajuiu (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue to handle cases where deletion process has been improperly followed. It is not a place to re-argue the AFD because you are "not satisfied" with it. A clear consensus was reached. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse - closure was procedurally correct; one particularly passionate !voter cannot overcome the clear, policy-based consensus of all the others. The petitioner is advised to read WP:STICK. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse correctly closed. SportingFlyer T·C 01:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse This article got another chance for community review, and the community has appropriately decided that it be deleted and create-protected, which is clearly within their purview. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • comments

dear gentleman three admins (Cryptic, Kuru, JGHowes ) are not the satisfied AFD while afd was going , because they knows someone trying too hard deleting this article from wikipedia. so that their comments very different, i can explain admin 1 .Cryptic comments Not substantially different from RT Rana (AfD discussion), which I'm surprised DRV didn't even attempt to analyze dear gentle man please see previous RT Rana artilce and this article.( huge different ) 2. Kuru comments every source is junk but he is the editing manager and he is removing unreliable sources while afd was going, finally 11 sources are here but how can tell all sources are junk 3 JGHowes closer while AFD was closing Time he did not add Shushugah votes , he closed so he is not satisfied AFD . yesterday only he add Deletion review going time Shushugah votes. see the histroy date - 31 march 2021 . but he closed 30 march 2021 note. -three admins are thinking Wikipedia need this article , and dear genteman please see the AFD Rajuiu (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse, and comment:
      • The close correctly reflects consensus.
      • This was a case of the gaming of article titles. Attempts to game the system should not be rewarded, and should not even be tolerated.
      • The salting was correct.
      • DRV is a content forum, but it may be necessary to go to WP:AN or WP:ANI if the appellant continues to try to bludgeon the process. A topic-ban may be in order.

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Someone mucked about with that debate, trying to make it look like the "delete" votes were in bad faith. Such tactics should not be allowed to succeed. That's a clear and straightforward endorse from me.—S Marshall T/C 10:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mohammad Zahid (Faisalabad cricketer)

Mohammad Zahid (Faisalabad cricketer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After discussing the close with Stifle on their talk page, I am of the conclusion that they mis-interpreted the policy at WP:NSPORT, which clearly states that WP:GNG has to be met here: In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. and confirmed in the 2017 RfC which I linked in the discussion here: [8]. Even though lots of users !voted keep, this should have been deleted for clearly failing WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 15:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse own decision. As I explained to SportingFlyer on my talk page, they are selectively quoting WP:NSPORT, which also says The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. (emphasis not mine), Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, and Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline.. Even the part that they selectively quoted uses "should meet" rather than the mandatory "must meet". It is abundantly clear, taking NSPORT as a whole, that it must be read as stating an article qualifies as notable if it either meets a sport-specific notability guideline (which this article does, and I do not understand that fact to be in dispute) or the general notability guideline, and my closure is therefore correct. As I advised SportingFlyer on my talk page, if they feel this should be changed, they should attempt to gather a consensus to make the change they would like at WT:NSPORT or elsewhere. Indeed, I have just discovered that such a discussion is ongoing at the moment, having started last weekend, and I suggest this DRV is premature and should be closed without prejudice. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Your reasoning is still incorrect. The RfC I quoted specifically came to the conclusion that There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. The "should provide reliable sources" does not create an and/or with the SNG, and the second quoted sentence just says failing to meet the SNG criteria means you can still be notable if you meet GNG, not anything about SNG allowing an article. In order to have a sports bio, based on recent consensus AND the way NSPORT is written, you must meet GNG. I don't know why this has become disputed. Either I am unaware of the new discussion, or the mentioned discussion is not on point here. The DRV is not premature. SportingFlyer T·C 15:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Your reading of NSPORT is an extreme stretch from what the page actually says, and to the extent a 4-year old RFC reached a consensus, consensus may change over time and the guideline documents what current consensus is. Again, if you want to change policy to require GNG as well as SNG – which would render all SNGs otiose and be a considerable departure from long-term custom and practice on Wikipedia – the correct step to take is to gather a consensus to change it. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below – if the guideline said what you incorrectly think it does, the word "or" would be "and". Stifle (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I am not trying to change policy to require GNG as well as SNG across the entire project. I worked on drafting WP:SNG, which was subject to a lot of discussion, including that RfC; if you search the discussion for NSPORT, you can see that a) there's general discussion that the RfC was an overreach for all SNGs, but not for NSPORT, and that b) NSPORT does require GNG to be met, and the SNG just creates a rebuttable presumption. See, specifically, NewImpartial's comment at 20:00 on 9 December. SportingFlyer T·C 16:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
          • It's clear I won't be changing your viewpoint and you won't be changing mine, so having regard to WP:BLUDGEON I will not reply further and will leave the others to determine whether I have correctly interpreted policy and guidance. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
That guideline is for articles being created; meeting NSPORT should be seen as akin to how a new article will typically survive first-pass scrutiny by NPP if it contains 3 independent RS. The criteria for creation are much less strict than those for deletion. JoelleJay (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse:
      • The closer correctly summarized the consensus.
      • I personally think that GNG is a vague messy test that is needed as a fallback when there isn't an applicable special notability guide, and that special notability guides, when available, should be sufficient. (The opinions of other editors may vary.)

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse I am unsympathetic to strict scrutiny being applied to guidelines (or even policies) because they all allow for exceptions on grounds of reason or common sense. Moreover, when closely parsed they give the (false, I'm sure) impression of having been written by committees of camels. I think AfD closers need to take a pragmatic approach and in this case no consensus is within the very wide range of outcomes I would think reasonable. Thincat (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • weak overturn to keep A) I'm really not trying to be a jackass here. B) I tend to be very sympathetic to NC closes and it takes a lot for me to argue an NC close should be overturned. But given the numbers (strong keep) and strength of argument (I'd call it a wash, in the GNG/SNG typical status but I can buy leaning toward delete depending on how you view that debate) it would have been better closed as keep frankly. Sorry to annoy both sides in this. Hobit (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I've always felt that Wikipedia articles need two independent, reliable sources, because if there are no good sources then the content isn't verifiable, and if there's only one source then our article is either plagiarism or a copyvio, so there are good reasons why you need two. For this reason, I abhor SNGs that allow articles that don't pass the GNG. But tragically, the community does allow SNGs to overrule the GNG in some cases, even where the SNG is blatant special pleading (and NSPORTS is the absolute worst of our SNGs in this respect). My opinion as an editor is that this content should have been deleted, but my opinion as a DRV reviewer is that Stifle's close was defensible. What we need to do is deprecate NSPORTS.—S Marshall T/C 10:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you – I would not have any objections to some tightening up being done to NSPORTS, but that discussion needs to take place elsewhere. Stifle (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    S Marshall has touched on the source of my frustration. Unlike some SNGs, WP:NSPORTS is supposed to ultimately require the WP:GNG to be met - it's literally the second sentence in WP:NSPORTS, and the community confirmed this with a 2017 RfC. It's frustrating to be told that this discussion has to happen when it already has happened. SportingFlyer T·C 20:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Could you help me out here? I'm seeing the second sentence as "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." It sounds like the GNG or SNG works. Am I looking at a different sentence than I should be? Are we just reading that differently? I'm pretty confused. Hobit (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence on NSPORT is This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The second sentence is meant as a guide for how to evaluate the sources already in the article, as a means of quickly predicting whether the subject is notable enough to avoid deletion, similar to how we look for 2–3 RS for bios in other disciplines. However, just like the RS might be shown at AfD to be insufficient for SIGCOV, editors may also determine the SNG presumption of notability for a particular subject is faulty by showing it failed in its prediction of GNG coverage. And I agree, the wording in NSPORT (and N) is terrible and unclear, although the regulars mostly seem to have the correct interpretation as described in the 2017 RfC. JoelleJay (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Robert McClenon. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutral All the keep !votes are, essentially, "passes NCRIC". Yet, as evidenced by multiple editors at the current RfC, previous ones, and the wording of NSPORTS itself, that guideline is a particularly problematic one and should definitively not be treated as a Verbum Dei. Now of course I'm not sure AfD closers can or should ignore so many non-policy votes from otherwise capable editors, hence the neutral. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Many (most?) editors at the current RfC actually seem to feel NSPORT guidance re: GNG is abundantly clear that SSGs are subordinate to GNG; that making the wording more explicit is unnecessary because it's such a minority of people who don't understand it; and/or that the rule just needs to be enforced more. Given the extremely high proportion of AfDs that end in delete for SSG-meeting sports bios as compared to any other bio, I think the majority of editors do understand NSPORT doesn't supersede GNG. The actual issue is there are many discussions that close as keep without GNG being met not because the !voters claim an SSG overrides it, but because in cases where the subject is pre-internet/non-English-language the SSGs imply editors should receive more time to find GNG-meeting sources offline. I think this lends itself to newer editors interpreting this is as evidence that the SSG does override GNG in any situation. JoelleJay (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    @JoelleJay: The AfD closed as delete (with the later recreation being a redirect), and your comment seems to support that. Otherwise, could you also clarify whether you suggest overturning to "no consensus" or to "keep"? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    RandomCanadian, I thought it closed as no consensus? While the close was defensible given the number of keep votes, I think the clearly mistaken interpretation of the guidelines should have merited at least another relist and ideally a close by an experienced admin who could review the arguments by the !voters (of which there is exactly one: passes NCRIC). I would argue to overturn it and either reopen or, preferably, close as delete. JoelleJay (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, got confused, for some reason I thought we were at the DRV for Allen (Cambridge University cricketer) (30 March) when I answered you (despite me having checked the AfD and commented above)... Stupid me. Nevermind the confusion, then. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. There's a bit of a contradiction at play here, as on the one hand the intention of NSPORT is as a proxy for GNG when access to sources may be limited, but on the other hand the community has expressly decided in the RFC cited by the OP that "arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion". Taking that RFC at face value, the closer must disregard the !vote of Lugnuts and every other keep vote that cited Lugnuts only. But then we see DevaCat1's keep vote, which not only cited NCRIC, but explains that there is an apparent "lack of good access to sources in Pakistan for most editors on an English language site". This offers us a concrete reason why we may be struggling to come up with sources on this guy, and this is exactly the point of the subject-specific guideline: to tell us that it's very likely the sources establishing notability exist, even if we haven't found them yet. So, taking the keep vote of DevaCat alongside the delete vote of the nom and SportingFlyer as valid votes, I think the "no consensus" outcome is correct. There isn't a consensus to keep though.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse Probably should have been closed as keep, but there is no effective difference between that and NC so not really worth a fight. No way this should have been closed as delete, that would be a clear WP:SUPERVOTE. Smartyllama (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Kalman_Sultanik (closed)

27 March 2021

John Allen (Irish cricketer)

John Allen (Irish cricketer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Incorrect closure. The closing reason states "no sources, no article". The article was sourced, so the closing admin has told a white lie. The votes were 6 keep, 4 delete. Clearly the result of this discussion was not delete, and although keep edges it, I'd say no consensus overall. Reasons for keep were valid and the subject played for a national sports team in a major sport. StickyWicket (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Overturn My keep comment in the AfD contains a link to an article about the subject, which I'm 99% sure I cited in the article too. Which would therefore debunk the "no sources, no article" mistake by the closer. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Not seeing a delete result here but could possibly understand it if there was valid rationale. However, the closing "no sources" statement is demonstrably false; as demonstrated by the CE bio which also cited at least one published book. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus I was surprised at this closer when I saw it given that the Cricket Europe source is significant coverage, so there was certainly some coverage, if only it was one article. One delete vote suggested that Cricket Europe was a self-published website, which was debunked as it was written by a cricket historian who contributes for Wisden, a known reliable source. I wouldn't say it's a clear keep, but certainly no consensus, although I'm not sure that this article needs to go through AfD again in the near future. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I participated in the discussion so won't be bolding my comments here, as did the three overturn voters immediately above me, but the close was absolutely correct - significant coverage is a requirement for an article, as much as the cricket community who show up and !vote keep on articles which don't meet GNG when challenged might not like to accept that. AfD is also not a vote - it's about the strength of the arguments - and even the keep !voters essentially acknowledged there wasn't enough for GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The rationale was per SIGCOV. No sources, no article... There was clearly sources in that article, so that debunks the second half of the closing argument. In terms of the SIGCOV the Cricket Europe biography is secondary, independent and reliable. His passing of a sports SNG and coverage in newspaper snippets mean he's likely presumed notable. As I said above, yes it's only one source, but to say there's no SIGCOV and no sources is a lie. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
No, there's a clear distinction between having a source in an article and having significant coverage, which is a requirement of WP:GNG. Also, Cricket Europe is clearly self-published. He's presumed notable until we go to an AfD and decide the coverage doesn't pass GNG, which is what happened here. Apart from Cricket Europe, there was no discussion about any other possible source which would demonstrate coverage which meant he passed the GNG - it's all "well we have an SNG!", even though the cricket SNG is infamous for being poorly calibrated to GNG, and unable to predict when a player will have enough coverage to pass GNG. Weight of arguments is important. SportingFlyer T·C 21:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Cricket Europe is a site run by a series of cricket historians, in the same way that Wisden is published by a series of cricket historians. It's not a fan site or published blog. The article went to AfD and was decided by yourself that it didn't pass SIGCOV. Two other users just posted delete fails SIGCOV without expanding on their point, against what is said to be done at WP:AFDFORMAT. The Cricket Europe bio also suggests that Billy Platt has written on the subject, suggesting further notability. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Self-published sources don't have to be fan sites or published blogs - it just means there's no independent editorial coverage, and it doesn't necessarily disqualify the source. What we're reviewing here is if the closer made a mistake or not, though, not re-litigating the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 21:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Cricket Europe is
  • Overturn - when the rationale for taking the individual's article to deletion is, "No obituary in Wisden" - is that how far we've descended as a project? What needs to happen is to make articles like this visible to the project first and foremost before sending to deletion. Note that rationales for deletion have become more and more tenuous as time goes on. Has the nature of collaboration within our project completely gone? Let's clarify, this isn't a re-do of the deletion discussion. This is an evaluation of the discussion. And the simple answer is, the discussion happened in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and there was not enough mileage to make this discussion valid.Take these discussions to an appropriate place first. Ensure enough eyes have seen it first and are able to provide what you may or may not consider "appropriate" sources. The Taking to AfD must not be a first resort. It is quite clear that, when given the chance for prior discussion, expansion can happen before an AfD discussion takes place. Bobo. 21:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Please recheck my rationale. I haven't said anything like "No obituary in Wisden". Störm (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The deletion rationale in the close comment is at best an oversimplification, but the discussion itself appears to me to have had a clear consensus that the only in-depth source that could be found was the one on cricketeurope, and (whether or not that one was reliable, not agreed on in the discussion) that one source was not enough for GNG. The article as deleted did include another source that could plausibly have counted, a contemporary newspaper article with the subject's name in its headline, but even wjemather who added it discounted it and only considered the cricketeurope as counting towards GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I second what David Eppstein has said above. CricketEurope's profile about the cricketer can only be used for verifiability. No one was sure if a profile in cricketeurope counts towards notability. All other sources added were trivial in nature and were used just to inflate the article. Störm (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to No Consensus - AFD is not a vote count, but the vote count should not be ignored without a sound policy-based reason based on strength of arguments. The closer's rationale does not address the Keep arguments at all. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse - The closer was correct because there were zero reliable sources providing significant coverage. The delete votes asserted a lack of SIGCOV, with the first delete vote highlighting the problem with the cited biography being self-published on a fan website. None of the following keep votes addressed the lack of SIGCOV or reliable sourcing. Perhaps the closing rationale was overly concise but this isn't Deletion Rationale Review.----Pontificalibus 06:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    Comment. You're selectively chosing to ignore the part where it's said that CricketEurope isn't a fan published website. It is run by cricket historians who contribute to Wisden. StickyWicket (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn’t ignore anything. It’s a fan site, it’s not published by Wisden and it has no editorial oversight. I contribute to scientific journals in my day job but if I set up my own website about vaccines it wouldn’t be a reliable source.—--Pontificalibus 10:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Things don't have to be published by Wisden to be reliable. CricketArchive isn't published by Wisden, none of the military history books about wartime cricketers I refer to are published by Wisden. StickyWicket (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The sentiment for keep was sufficiently strong that the close should been reflective of the difficulty in dealing with the subjective and advisory nature of our notability guidelines. Well-meaning people deserve better than this. Even as a !vote on the article it was poorly expressed. Thincat (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC. Appears to meet the SNG. There is one detailed source that no one argues is unreliable (self-published, but apparently by an expert in the area who is well regarded). Given the numbers and the strength of argument, I don't see consensus for keeping or deleting. Hobit (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The very reason why this article was brought to AfD is because meeting the cricket SNG isn't sufficient for an article, given how many players meet the SNG but fail GNG. In order for this to be overturned, the closing argument would have to assume that meeting the SNG trumps having to meet GNG, which does nevertheless require multiple sources, not one single source which participants disagree about. SportingFlyer T·C 19:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I can't see the article, but as I understand it there are plenty of sources that mention him in this context. One good source, lots of directory-like sources (which I assume include things about how each player did) is perhaps enough to get us there. My general sense is that when the SNG is not met, we expect above the GNG bar, and when the SNG is met, we are more flexible. Otherwise the SNG provides no value... Hobit (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think your general sense is generally correct and that we are more lenient when the SNG is met, but if the SNG is met and GNG is clearly not met, as is the case here, a delete outcome reasonably follows. Furthermore, he barely passes the SNG, which greatly reduces any flexibility we might otherwise have (if he had 100 appearances for Ireland but no one could find any sources, the outcome might reasonably be different unless someone put in good research showing newspapers did not cover him at all.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The SNGs try to be a bright line--if the topic is over, it's over. And it's not the the GNG clearly isn't met. We've got one good source that we've identified. We've not found much else. I'd bet local papers at the time covered him to some extent. I've no objection to a merge/redirect for now if it is reasonable to mention him in the target proposed. But this is DRV and the question is if it was closed correctly. I don't think delete is the right outcome given that discussion... Hobit (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The "delete" opinions argued that there was no substantial coverage of the person, which is required per WP:GNG. Nobody contradicted that. The SNGs create only a rebuttable presumption of notability, and that presumption was rebutted here. The closer was therefore right to give the "delete" opinions determining weight. Sandstein 07:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus. The numbers were relatively well balanced and neither side correctly raised a policy-based argument that was not rebutted. Despite repeated assertions to the contrary by certain parties, an article needs only to pass an SNG or the GNG, not both. If it were otherwise, there would be no point in SNGs existing. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment (from AfD closer): WP:SNG: "The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." --Randykitty (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse WP:NOTAVOTE seems to apply, and in this case the keep !votes were markedly weak: 2 were essentially "he passes an SNG"; 1 was a "per above". That only leaves relatively weak (one of them self-identified as such) arguments about marginal coverage. There was no consensus to redirect (mentioned by only a few users), even if that would be a possibly valid alternative; and since the strength of the arguments was solidly on the delete side, there was no reason to keep the article (which is what a no consensus close effectively does). Of course this does not prevent the title being recreated as a redirect; but I doubt keeping the previous history of the article is really necessary, especially for a player who is long inactive and unlikely to get further coverage... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus Close reads more like a !vote than a proper close, and as others have explained, is false in any event as there were sources. Whether the sources were significant is a matter for consensus to determine, and there was no strong consensus one way or the other. Smartyllama (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Sensitive TFA images (closed)

25 March 2021


File:TheWire28.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

File was hastily deleted after two votes (one for a speedy keep, one for a deletion). For context, each article for each episode of The Wire has had a still image from the episode to serve as an episode identification. The non-free images that have been used on those articles have been there and stayed here for over 15 years. The claim that the images could have been from any other episode and therefore fails NFCC#8 is false. I am retrieving these images from IMDB - they are often official set photos created by the cast, from that specific episode.

Another editor said this in the discussion:

"The claim that the image "serves to identify the episode" makes no sense: I watched all of the episodes of "The Wire", but the picture that I have just described is not in any way specific enough to bring back the particular episode in question: it could easily have come from any one of many episodes, even if one regards identifying the particular episode as "significantly [increasing] readers' understanding of the article topic" and believes that failure to do so "would be detrimental to that understanding", which is highly dubious anyway."

If I take an official set image from a specific episode and I add it to the article of that episode, then the image is meeting NFCC#8. It by definition has contextual significance because it is literally demonstrating what occurred in the episode. It is a direct representation of WHAT OCCURRED in the episode and therefore serves a PURPOSE in the article. The image that was deleted was literally from that episode - just because you happen not to remember it was from that episode doesn't mean it wasn't from that episode. I already addressed the claim that it could have come from many episodes. I'm retrieving it from the IMDB entry for each episode.

I find it confusing that some editor from 2006 had the same idea I did and wasn't immediately stalked and watchlisted to have all their files marked for deletion. In fact, this file was not originally uploaded by me, it was uploaded by that editor.

Part of the reason why the @Whpq: doesn't think the file meets NFCC is simply because the article isn't written as well as articles of episodes of Breaking Bad are. For example, almost every episode of Breaking Bad goes into depth about reception, whereas episodes of The Wire haven't been contributed to in months/years. This is why he was unable to get the images I uploaded to the Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul articles removed.

I want to end off by circling back to NFCC#8 with an example from Final Grades, the final episode of Season 4 of The Wire. The current non-free image being used there is a picture of a major character in an iconic death scene, which is mentioned under the "Stanfield Organization", "McNulty", and "Critical response" section of the article. And yet, Whpq tagged the image. Even outside of this, viewers who have watched The Wire would immediately recognize that the scene would be from season 4's finale, which would definitely increase the reader's understanding of the article. LJF2019 talk 21:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse Based on the discussion, that appears to be a textbook NFCC#8. The image needs to provide added context, which appears not to be the case here. The rationale for NFCC is that we need to minimise the amount of non-free content on the site, which is long-standing. I haven't seen the other images described here, but it's very possible, though not certain, they also fail NPCC as well. SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy overturn and relist. Yet again, an FFD closure pretends that WP:NFCC#8 was a simple and objective criterion that the article fails. This is a perennial problem with FFD, which is unreflective of the community. The fact is that an ideological split exists on Wikipedia between the free content maximalists and the write-an-encyclopaedia-in-any-lawful-manner types, and FFD is mainly of interest to free content maximalists.
    NFCC#8 is a horrible fudge, and it isn't possible to interpret it in an objective manner. It says that Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, the problem being that some people are more visual than others, and therefore something that doesn't increase your understanding of an article topic might very well increase mine. I put it to you that NFCC#8 is inherently subjective and can only be evaluated by community consensus. It cannot possibly be evaluated by an individual sysop based on their personal opinion.
    In this case there was, clearly, not a consensus that the image failed NFCC#8. The closer substituted their own view for the community's. It's indefensible and self-evidently cannot be allowed to stand.—S Marshall T/C 11:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is inherently subjective. It's very strongly worded - that omitting the image would be detrimental to the article. If there's not consensus about whether its omission is detrimental, omitting it probably isn't detrimental. The delete argument by JBW is also exceptionally strong in determining the detriment. I don't see how no consensus is a viable option here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • If such an ideological split exists in any significant form seems an irrelevant question - the WMF has defined the project's boundaries in such a matter and we aren't free to just ignore it. the resolution on this states "the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to 'empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license'", it does of course recognise that for some images there maybe no choice and provides for it, but on your ideological level it's pretty clear. (Incidentally your idea of use legally seems to mean use legally in certain countries many places in the world don't, if indeed an image is needed for understanding someone truly interested in writing a universal encyclopedia would do all they could to come up with an alternate for those many people in the world who can't use the non-free stuff, of course if you are only interested in writing something to be read on I guess you may not be interested in full free content) -- (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm here to write an encyclopaedia, and to build good quality encyclopaedia content by any lawful means. I feel that people who're here to delete encyclopaedic content for reasons of free content ideology are not here to build an encyclopaedia, and I have no patience for them whatsoever.—S Marshall T/C 20:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC Pretty much per S Marshall's arguments. Put more simply: NFCC#8 is an opinion-based criteria, there was no numeric consensus in the discussion, and the keep argument wasn't clearly wrong. I've no objection to a relist. Hobit (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Whilst there was not a consensus at the discussion, NFCC are applied strictly and require a clear consensus to keep a non-free file, which was not present. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Stifle:I'm too far out of NFCC stuff these days. Could you point me at where that is specified? Hobit (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Quotes from WP:NFC:
        1. There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia.
        2. Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created
      • In general, the basis of Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia requires that non-free content is an exception and requires a consensus to include, not to exclude. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Having had the NFCC hammer come down on episodes that I'd worked on extensively, I feel the DRV nom's pain here. At the same time, whpq and Fastily are both quite active and experienced in dealing with such areas. I suspect specialist understanding of the topic may have outstripped what an average editor understands. At what point does being so familiar with the people & assumptions about NFCC become less of a help and more of a barrier? I truly do not know. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Endorse, noting that:
      • I have very little experience at Files for Discussion.
      • The appellant appears to be re-litigating the decision rather than citing an error by the closer.
      • Delete, Relist, or No Consensus would have been valid closures. So Delete is a valid closure.

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Overturn either to NC or to relist per S Marshall. To the contrary of the above, this is certainly not relitigating the discussion; it is merely pointing out that NFCC 8 is a criterion that has been interpreted in very "creative" ways, and requires community consensus to determine rather than being one of the more "objective" criterions, despite the close claiming it was a clear case. There's no rule that only title cards can be used as "representative" images, and such a rule would be silly anyway and not find consensus. The delete votes were quite unconvincing here. SnowFire (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Keep argument had three faulty points: it's been here a long time, other stuff exists, and it increases the readers' understanding simply by existing. WP:NFC#CS is very clear: the file either has to be subject to critical commentary or identifies "an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article." Taking a random screenshot from the episode does not satisfy NFCC. This was uploaded in 2006, it's time to stop making arguments like it's still 2006. plicit 07:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Gerry Stahl (closed)

24 March 2021

Category:American actors of Italian descent

File:Foo.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) ([[Category:American actors of Italian descent|article]]|XfD|restore)

Looking to recreate the category per WP:CLT, the article List of Italian-American actors now has some more context based on information from reliable, secondary sources on why this categorization is valid. These were not considered in the 2013 CFD. Closing admin doesn't seem to be active anymore. I believe that based on what academic literature says, Italian American identity within American cinema is unique among European American ethnicities in its effect on greater American popular culture so it's not comparable to any of the other categories deleted in that mass nomination.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  • This is a bit different from most DRVs, but if this were at CfD, I would still vote to delete on overcategorisation grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 16:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Could you explain? If you see the information in the article List of Italian-American actors, it explains why Italian-American identity among actors is extremely palpable and influences filmmaking and casting to a great extent.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
      • We've typically kept X of Y descent separate from occupational categories, otherwise things become very unwieldy very quickly. SportingFlyer T·C 10:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
        • That's not really true there are plenty of categories of the sort which exist, of course there are plenty more which at deleted as well. Category:American actors of Chinese descent has been CFD'd at at least 4 times and has survived every time. I'm also pretty sure that overall project guidelines, specifically WP:COMPREHENSIVE, prohibits the limiting of certain kinds of content just because "it could become unwieldy" to have a proliferation of similar content in the future.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
          • That category has technically been kept, true, but it's actually been "no consensus"'d four times. So there's not a clear guideline here that these sorts of categories are acceptable. SportingFlyer T·C 13:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

18 March 2021

Category:Roman Catholic bishops by nationality

Category:Roman Catholic bishops by nationality (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This category was deleted in a discussion with a total of 4 participants. I suggested that it should not be deleted without notifying the contributing categories but was ignored. A later discussion on Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by nationality has generated many more participants and has shown a clear consensus against this change. As it is there are multiple subcategories that do not fit in the new parameters such as Category:French Roman Catholic bishops in Africa and Category:Spanish Roman Catholic bishops in South America. Beyond this we have a huge number of sib-cats which are Irish Roman Catholic bishops, German Roman Catholic bishops, etc. We have other categories such as Category:Roman Catholic bishops in the United States which show there is some will to create parallel trees by both where bishops served and where they were from. This under participated in discussion that failed to tag relevant child categories and is now trying to impose a change of scope on the child categories is making things truly messy. The best course is to overturn this premature close especially considering the opposition to applying it more broadly. Huge category scope changes like this should not be effected with so little participation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Question. "deleted" or "moved"? The CfD linked shows a move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
    • When I look I see a merge, not a move, followed by deletion. Anyway, it doesn't matter, categories are no use any more but fortunately, along with other useless stuff like Authority Control and navboxes, they are down at the bottom where they are easily ignored. Thincat (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I guess this more constitutes and out of process merger. It was merged into the Roman Catholic bishops by country, ignoring that it was a child of Category:Occupation by nationality. This would be like assuming that the defining thing for ambassadors is where they worked, and their nationality has no importance, and merging Ambassadors by nationality into Ambassadors by country of assignment. OK, since some bishops serve in their country of origin, this is a little bit extreme, however at times in the past the majority and at times virtually all bishops serving outside of Europe were from within Europe, so in some places for decades and in some areas for centuries every bishop was not someone from that location, so in some places this would be the functional reality of the situation. This is a very, very wrong headed move. It ignored the fact we have categories like Category:Spanish Roman Catholic bishops in South America and Category:French Roman Catholic bishops in Africa that clearly go against it. If you look at [9] you will find the current discussion about the seeming sister category (or daughter category, if you see archbishops as a subset of all bishops, a view that I think would allow for avoiding too many small categories) we have 5 people opposing the nomination and only 2 in support counting the person who made the nomination. There is clearly not widespread support for this move. Also This move made it so French Roman Catholic bishops a category that in all its other parents says it is about people by nationality, has one parent which attempts to rescope it to only those who served in France, and include any who served in France who were not French. This is ignoring at least 68 articles there that are explicitly categorized as not serving in France, and there are possibly more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • That CfD asked the participants to choose between two alternatives, bishops by country vs bishops by nationality, and most of them accepted that framing. As Carlossuarez46 correctly pointed out during the debate, in fact the two choices presented weren't mutually exclusive. This should have led to a discussion about whether we could have both, but for some bizarre reason, there wasn't much discussion of that. In my view we should actually fork the category into (1) RC bishops by country of diocese and (2) RC bishops by country of origin. We might need to send it back to CfD for the category nerds to decide how to do that in a way that's consistent with our other categorization decisions.—S Marshall T/C 13:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse a tricky discussion, but I think the close correctly identified the consensus. I'm not sure this whole thing isn't a giant overcategorisation but that's not the question being asked. As the closer noted, there's work to be done here - it doesn't change the ultimate consensus, though. SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Relist for increased participation (though I don't tpersonally hink it matters much one way or another) DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse The close correctly identified the consensus. That said, perhaps a discussion of forking is necessary by nationality. Not at the bishop level but higher up the tree. For example: Category:Scottish Christian clergy could be the target of all Scottish nationals who were bishops but who did not serve their episcopacy in Scotland. It would essentially be an expat category and so should be quite small. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Relist - it leaves all the contents such as Category:American Roman Catholic bishops without their obvious parent. A consensus to do something silly should not prevail. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The close was correct, but it is a pointless close since none of the follow-up nominations (that were implied by this close) will go through. Relist per WP:IAR. I still think that emigrants with an occupation in their new country rather than in their country of origin should be categorized by occupation + new nationality instead of by occupation + old nationality, in fact I thought that was even in one of the categorization guidelines - but I can't find it and there is apparently not enough consensus for that logic. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    • It was my nomination, but I agree it hasnt worked and needs to be reconsidered in a wider context. We need to find a way of categorising clergy which can cope with both nationality and location without confusing the two - which is what we had before. Rathfelder (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Calling most bishops emigrants is misusing the word. There are some few bishops that are emigrants. There are a lot more who are expatriates. In some cases these bishops were very closely connected with colonist regimes. There is a reason we have Category:French Roman Catholic bishops in Africa, Category:Spanish Roman Catholic bishops in South America and Category:German Roman Catholic bishops in North America. I have not checked the last one, so there may be a few debatable cases there. French bishops in Africa is full of men who I do not think there is any way to consider them to have been anything other than French.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Migration patterns amongst clergy vary, as you might expect, for place to place. But its very rare for a person to migrate once they have attained the status of bishop. Much more common is young priests moving to a new country to become a bishop. And regardless of what you might think about their personal nationality (I've only found 3 articles which actually say something about a bishop's nationality) a large majority stay in the country where they are a bishop until they die. Rathfelder (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

David Hill (arts director) (closed)


Archives, by year and month
Year 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