Wikipedia:Deletion review

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

Administrator instructions

Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

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

Purpose[edit]

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. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  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); or
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).

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

Instructions[edit]

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion Review. See § Purpose.
  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.

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

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.

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[edit]

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 non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews[edit]

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).

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]

 
1.

Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin 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 admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.

2.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3.

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 deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
4.

Inform the administrator who deleted the page, or the user who closed the deletion discussion, by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
5.

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

6.

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=2017 September 25}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2017 September 25|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 



Active discussions[edit]

25 September 2017[edit]

22 September 2017[edit]

⛹️[edit]

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

This was closed as "delete" despite there not being consensus to delete, in my opinion. I see this as a discussion to decide whether it is better to have ⛹️ target basketball or ball game, and the majority of discussion was in line with that. There were a few delete !votes, but one of them was patently ridiculous (no, the emoji isn't a yo-yo or a severed head) and another was a boilerplate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Finally, a third delete !vote was a bit stronger (although I disagree that it's ambiguous), and the closer used the language of that !vote in their closing rationale. However, the vast majority of discussion does not lend support to this conclusion. For example, I was supportive of a retarget to either basketball or ball game, but I am not supportive of deletion. I feel this should be relisted so I can get clarification from those who participated in the discussion to see whether or not they support deletion (because for the majority of !votes, this was unclear). -- Tavix (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Do we make redirects from emojis? I recognize some may be important enough to have an article, but otherwise they'd fall under NOT DICTIONARY. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:EMOJI. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn there's no reason to delete an article at all when a merge or redirect option has a numerical preponderance: the specific target can be sorted out, e.g., via a relisting, but consensus was clearly not for deletion. Mind you, i think we should actually ban emojis entirely, but that's not current policy even if I want it to be. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse speaking for myself, my !vote for a target was based on it being unambiguous, and if I had come back to the RfD afterwards, I would have !voted to delete based on the clear confusion demonstrated in the RfD as to what the target for this emoji should have been. The disagreement as to the meaning of the character within the RfD, combined with the agreement that it was at the wrong target left the closer with little other option. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This is something I would definitely have relisted. Excluding cases like "person holding a severed head" and the like, the only real ambiguity discussed in the RfD was between a specific meaning (basketball) and the generic meaning (ball game). This sort of ambiguity can be taken as an argument for retargeting to the generic meaning (which subsumes the specific one), but it seems odd to see it as justifying deletion. – Uanfala 17:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn to relist as requested by Tavix. I do not see a consensus for deletion in the discussion. For redirects, lack of consensus for where to redirect should default to no consensus, not deletion.

    Cunard (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  • This row in Miscellaneous Symbols is a possible redirect target:
    Miscellaneous Symbols Unicode block
    Official Name Glyph Unicode # HTML Common meaning
    Person with ball U+26F9 &#9977; Track and field, gymnasium. From ARIB STD B24.
    We can add an anchor to that row: Miscellaneous Symbols#⛹️. It is better than the other targets gym, ball game, and basketball because different operating systems display different glyphs, which could be confusing to the reader, and because it gives readers more information. It tells readers the symbol's official name, glyph, unicode number, HTML, and common meaning.

    Tavix (talk · contribs), what do you think about this alternative redirect target?

    Cunard (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of DRV to discuss alternative redirects. If the discussion is relisted, then we'll discuss. -- Tavix (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
No, it may not be, but this gets more eyes on a problem that didn't get an adequate solution the first time around, so I'm completely fine with "not the purpose" dialogue happening here if it provides a better solution than those considered at the AfD. And yes, I agree that Cunard's suggestion is more elegant than anything brought up in the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
So let's get this relisted and then it can be discussed at the proper venue: RfD (not AfD). -- Tavix (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn to relist per nom. I share the concerns with some of the delete !votes, and would have relisted it if I had closed it to allow more time to discuss a redirect target.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse but redirect to the miscellaneous symbols page as suggested by Cunard. In the discussion there was general agreement that the redirect pointed to the wrong place but no consistent notion of the proper target, as well as substantial support for the idea that it shouldn't point anywhere. Closing the discussion as anything other than delete would have left it still redirecting to the wrong target, so the close was the least bad option among a bunch of unsatisfactory alternatives. Reyk YO! 07:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse there was no consensus for a single option in that discussion, the issue is about what "no consensus" means here. "No consensus" normally means defaulting to "keep", which would be downright silly here as nobody thought that was a good idea. Rather it means we're in the situation reflected in Finnusertop's comment, where the title is ambiguous and we can't agree on a definite target. Usual practice in that situation is not to have a redirect. Relisting is not a substitute for no consensus, it's used when the discussion hasn't had enough participation, and this one had plenty. Hut 8.5 19:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The delete arguments failed to cite any real policy-based arguments, and were severely overweighed in the closure. The discussion was narrowing down its options, and should have been relisted to gather further comments. I "delete" result makes absolutely no sense here. xplicit 02:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

20 September 2017[edit]

Debris documentar[edit]

Debris documentar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Please restore my article. I was out of home so I did not have time to contest your deletion and only saw it now. To reiterate: I translated it from the German equivalent Wiki, so, obviously, they did not have a problem vis-a-vis notability/importance over there (and I added references to reliable sources), plus, my article was approved here by another editor via the articles for creation apparatus. As for content: no, it was not vandalism. I realize the film's content is, to put it mildly, not everyone's cup of tea, yet, everything described in the text actually happened in the film. I have worked hard on this entry: Please reply ASAP. 79.183.203.120 (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Overturn and trout the deleting admin. The reason given in the deletion log was "Please review content. No indication of importance, verges on vandalism", which is what the tagger wrote. That kind of implies it was an A7 deletion, but the article was about a film and A7 does not apply to films. Even if A7 did apply to films the article cited a couple of sources which should have circumvented this. I don't remotely see how this could possibly be vandalism. Granted, the content of the film is obviously rather disgusting (it's about cannibalism), but that certainly doesn't make it vandalism. Hut 8.5 20:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Can you please kindly help me restore it?--79.183.203.120 (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
When this discussion is closed the closer will make a decision as to whether to restore the page based on what was written in the discussion. Hut 8.5 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn and take to WP:AFD. Unfortunately we don't have speedy-delete criteria for non-notable films, so AFD is the only venue for deleting them. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    This appears to have been a {{subst:prod}} deletion (though I'm not an admin so I can't check for sure). I'm not sure why the WP:REFUND discussion was closed in favor of this one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    It wasn't a PROD deletion, it was a deletion in response to a CSD tag that included the rationale "Please review content. No indication of importance, verges on vandalism." That isn't a valid rationale for a CSD nomination or subsequent CSD deletion. We don't generally overturn CSD decisions at WP:REFUND, and I felt it best if one admin didn't unilaterally revert the action of another admin (especially RHaworth whom I respect), so I preferred a consensus at DRV. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The deleted article certainly includes WP:Offensive material, but that's not a WP:CSD. The deletion log doesn't say which WP:CSD this was deleted under, so we're left to guess. If, as conjectured above, it was meant to be WP:A7, then it doesn't apply. Just because it's offensive and disturbing doesn't mean it's vandalism. And, it does have a reference to what looks to be (via the auto-translation) a legitimate movie review in what I presume is a WP:RS. I doubt this will survive WP:AfD, but it's not CSD material. If we do keep it, I would hope we can find some way to describe the film without listing every gross and disturbing plot detail. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    It was a CSD tag with a manually-edited rationale. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn with a trout to the deleting admin. CSD isn't a good place for IAR. Hobit (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Original deleter did not reply to my message yet. When can one restore the entry? Thanks.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
DRV tends to be a "slow zone" with speedy closes being rare. Assume it will run the full week. Sorry, but as the "last stop" for dealing with deletion issues there is a sense that it's better to get it right than get it fast. Hobit (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
They replied now and still seem very hostile for some reason: "Consider yourself lucky that I am talking to an IP address. So why did you not link to the German version? And yes they do have a problem - have you read the hat note to it? So which of the cited sources even mentions this movie? Try again via AfC if you must." Here is what I wrote back: "German version from which I translated is here. Here is the main source I cited which discusses the film at length. Four editors have by now replied over at deletion review and all said the original reasoning for deletion was spurious." You can see the tagger's comments here.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am the person who put the CSD tag on the article. To clarify, I did not use or intend to use A7 as a deletion reason. Anti-vandalism patrollers observed the addition of content like:
"...He indulges in several disturbing sexual fetishes, including defecating, urinating, necrophilia, bestiality, anal fisting, rape, murder, nose-picking... who puts an enema into her anus and defecates into a bucket, while placing the man onto a table and shoving her fist into his anus, pulling defecate out of there .... he is sexually aroused by her corpse. He cuts her nipples off in graphic detail and uses his scalpel to cut the dead woman's clitoris off. He then takes the scalpel and peels the skin off one of her fingers and eats the pieces of dismembered skin... stabbed multiple times in extremely graphic detail. Blood splatters onto Rafael, who is killing her. He then proceeds to ram a knife into her vagina, followed by him taking the knife and stabbing her entrails open, as he rips them from her abdomen..."
I was told about this in IRC, after review we decided it was probably accurate (this film is disgusting). In the absence of a button to summon admins to examine a page, I decided to use a CSD tag with a custom rationale (db) to get an admin to look at the page. It was discussed and decided that sending a page like this to AfD would be the wrong thing to do given the content. I am not adverse to it being restored but would kindly ask whoever does so to Revdel it back to its less graphic state (which did pass AfC). There is no real reason to explain the plot with this level of graphic detail, given that Wikipedia pages are read by children and carry no warnings. Not even Paraphilia or Sexual intercourse go into this level of detail. Α Guy into Books § (Message) -  13:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. As I wrote on your talk page, I have no problem with removing/modifying the most graphic parts after the entry is restored. Everyone here is more than welcome to help me with this endeavor.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • <ec>Doesn't WP:NOTCENSORED apply here? I've no objection to editing out excessive plot details. But we don't put warning labels on things or edit away things because they are offensive. I can't see the history, but reverting excessive plot would have been a good first step. Net effect, the CSD tagging was suboptimal, the CSD deletion was _very_ suboptimal and requests to clean up the article before it's restored are unlikely to get traction. Hobit (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Please don't use deletion requests with something like a deletion rationale to "get an admin to look at the page". The template you added should only be used if you are requesting that the page be speedily deleted. There are plenty of mechanisms for you to bring a page to the attention of an admin without nominating it for deletion, e.g. {{adminhelp}} or WP:AN. Whether we want to modify the graphic description is open for discussion but I don't see how it falls under the revdel criteria, the only one which even vaguely applies is RD2 and that excludes factual content. You could just have removed that bit or reverted to an earlier version if you wanted to remove it instead of nominating the page for deletion. The deleting admin did make a much worse mistake by actually deleting the page with this rationale though. Hut 8.5 17:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
What happens if the original deleter refuses to restore the article despite all that is being said here?--79.183.203.120 (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
When the discussion is closed then if the consensus is to restore the article then the article will be restored, whether the deleting admin likes it or not. Hut 8.5 18:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn db-custom doesn't apply the second good faith editors consider it to be controversial. That's happened here, so its best to overturn. Feel free to take it to AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Google, by the way, managed to cache the article before it was deleted, in case someone wants to read it.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Regarding WP:NOTCENSORED applying, also keep in mind WP:Offensive material, which says, Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Let's assume for the moment that this goes to AfD and ends up getting kept. Then, the next question is whether toning down the current language and graphical depictions would make the article less informative, relevant, or accurate? I'm pretty sure we could find some way to word this which makes it completely clear what the film depicts with being quite so literal in its descriptions. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn with trout, deletion imposed completely outside of the deliberately narrow scope we allow speedy for, and not the first instance of this in recent times, either. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC).
  • Overturn No valid reason for deletion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse my deletion. OK movies cannot be deleted under A7 but is worth restoring it just to have it deleted at AfD? RoySmith, please check the sole reference in the article. Yes, it's a movie review but is it of this article? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
As I already noted in my original reply to you (reprinted above), I cited two sources in my article, not one, including this book which discusses the film at length. After the entry is restored, will the talk page be restored too? And, sorry for the double posting over at undeletion. I should like to add that this deleter is arguing in bad faith, viz. their hostility towards me and blatantly false insistence that I only cited one source in the article, and, they continute to make snarky and hostile comments against me on their talk page, the latest: "I wonder if you will ever learn about wikilinks," strange given how I used them in the original article. It seems almost as if they have some vendetta against me: They're probably simply outright lying for their case against me and should be monitored and taken with a grain of salt for their decision regarding the case in the future.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn to revdel  This is basic deletion theory, that we don't delete articles that can be repaired with revdel.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

18 September 2017[edit]

Ryan Willis[edit]

Ryan Willis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think this passes GNG. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I sent him a notification about this DRV. He hasn't edited since last year. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The idea is to discuss it before opening the DRV, but seeing as how he seems to be inactive, it's probably kind of moot. In any case, the AfD saw minimal participation. I probably would have relisted it, or perhaps closed it as WP:SOFTDELETE. The sources presented here look plausible, so restoring it seems reasonable. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse close since I don't find any fault with the closing admin's reading to the discussion, and allow recreation because of the new sources. Reyk YO! 07:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse close which means no restoration of history as the deletion was completely valid. Anyone is free to recreate if it would be substantially different (i.e. not G4 eligible) and doesn't need the permission of a deletion review. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • endorse and userfy. It was valid, but now we have sources. I can't think of a reason why we can't provide a copy of the old article as a starting point (no idea if the article was a decent starting point mind you). @TonyBallioni: am I missing some reason to not give someone creating a new article the ability to use the old one as a starting point (if they wish, clearly we can't and shouldn't require that). Hobit (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Hobit, very good point. I've struck that section above. If an article has been deleted in the past and the discussion was long, I tend to prefer new creations because it was assumed at the point of the AfD that the content was not worth keeping, and I don't like second guessing AfDs. At the same time, userfication is a normal process, and this specific AfD didn't give us a reason not to userfy. Thanks for raising the point. I'll agree with your suggestion here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Userify for improvement with mainspace movement at the requesting editor's initiative, and other editors free to AfD it if they feel it still needs deleting once mainspace'd again. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn to SOFTDELETE  Without discussion with the closer, we won't know if this otherwise erroneous WP:NOQUORUM was somehow an undocumented WP:IAR.  Whether the OP wants to use WP:REFUND or wants to start a new article is up to the OP.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Fair. Consider my !vote to be "userfy on request". Certainly not my intent to _make_ them start with the old article. Hobit (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


Recent discussions[edit]

17 September 2017[edit]

S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer)[edit]

S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please forgive me, this is a long and frustrating read because this article goes deeper than a single AfD decision.

The articles for various cricketers were sent to PROD - those belonging to A. Devapriya, K. de Silva, N. Fernando and N. Kumara, back in March 2010, in spite of each of the cricketers meeting long-established notability guidelines. I re-added these four months ago

The article belonging to S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) was sent to AfD - nearly five years later, albeit by a different user. I reinstated this article along with the other four, following discussion here. Naturally, this cricketer passes these long-held notability guidelines, similar to every other team sporting guideline, that a single appearance in a major competition is enough to establish notability. (Statistics here). There are thousands of articles like this on Wikipedia, those of cricket players with a single major cricketing appearance, and every single one has been allowed to expand and thrive as an individual article - similar to single-appearance biographies in almost every team sport. Hence the reason for his addition.

I concede that the closing admin here had a difficult decision to make considering the views put forward on the AfD page - however I do not consider the deletion rationales to be watertight. All the original deletion rationale claims is "Non-notable BLP". Which is scant - and unqualified - justification for sending an article which clearly meets long-accepted guidelines - to which we have held ever since the establishment of Wikiproject Cricket, as has every other competitive team sport - to AfD, especially since the rationale quotes no policy. Nor would it presumably be given adequate weight as a deletion rationale by a casting !voter by a closing admin, as the vote would quote no single guideline. The discussion included the point that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I thereby considered, perhaps the reason the article was being sent for deletion was purely the pluralization of the word "source"! Perhaps if we had included a link to a second source, this would have satisfied the "single source" deletion rationale.

Along followed a debate on the AfD page in which the long-established guideline of WP:CRIN - which has never done us harm up until now - was quoted - that the article "technically met cricket biography notability guidelines", but that these were "only guidelines" (two quotes from the same user).

Anyhow, following much discussion, which included delete votes put forward by an IP address, as well as an account which we have been unable to trace, the article was deleted.

While fearing this article would be speedily deleted under CSD G4, I reinstated this (link to the Undelete logs) in May 2017, based on a discussion which took place here, alongside the four previously PROD-ded articles. While not deleted there and then, the article was speedily deleted four months later (is that a contradiction in terms?) under exactly the CSD criterion I feared.

My main point is that most of the deletion !votes - as well as the rationale of the closing admin - in the 2015 deletion debate - based primarily on the fact that "we do not have basic details like date of birth", quoted three times by the IP address, are weak or invalid.

In conclusion, I feel this article should be reinstated, based on weak, and invalid, deletion rationales, the fact that the article categorically meets inclusion criteria, and the fact that I believe there was no clear consensus in the AfD discussion. This article deletion has proven a net negative to our project, where we now fear that every article which meets the same criteria may suffer the same fate. Bobo. 10:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Endorse- the consensus at the AfD was clearly to delete, and there was nothing wrong with the later speedy deletion. I think both decisions reflected the state of the article and the opinions of the AfD participants. As the closing admin pointed out, the actual problem is one WikiProject elevating its own, overly inclusive, standards over WP:GNG, which is accepted Wikipedia-wide.
The article was little more than a few database entries inflated grotesquely. It was not even possible to determine the player's first name. Turning raw stats into prose in this manner leads to possible BLP issues, because it's easy to be tempted to introduce unsubstantiated material. Examples, which have actually happened, include asserting a player is retired, or still living, when there's no way to tell that from the source material. Or when it's not clear whether two stats pages are referring to one player competing for two clubs, or two similarly named people playing for one team each. This of course leads to BLP issues.
The best way, IMO, to present raw stats is in the form of a list. I would support the creation of List of Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketers where these bare numbers could be listed in full, allowing the comparison of similar entries, and avoiding the trap of saying more in prose than the sources do. Genuinely notable players would be blue linked, of course.
Finally, I am aware that endorsing the AfD is likely to make me the target of further harassment and abuse, but that is no reason to avoid speaking my mind. My opinion on this matter is legitimate regardless of what my detractors may think. Reyk YO! 11:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Reyk, while I generally don't understand how this procedure works, I suggest that given our considerable interaction, this should recuse you from the discussion. Bobo. 11:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. Reyk YO! 11:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I thought the whole point of taking articles to DRV was that they were evaluated by an uninvolved party..? Bobo. 11:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but involved parties are also allowed to comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
(ec) You'll find I didn't nominate the original AfD, and didn't vote on it, so I'm as uninvolved as can be. Your subsequent actions are an unrelated, behavioural, matter. Since your repetitious complaints about this AfD served as a distraction from your behavioural issues at the ANI, I could just as easily accuse you of being involved and therefore lacking standing to bring this DRV. But I'm not a wikilawyer. My !vote here stands. This will be my last reply to you on the topic. Reyk YO! 11:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse as deleting admin, Bobo's comments referring to long established guidelines are illuminating. The idea that all first class cricketers are inherently notable is long entrenched but does not reflect the tightening up of standards around bios and bops in particular that has happened in recent years. So we have an sng in conflict with wider community expectations shown in blp/gng/n. Bobo's would argue that CRIN has priority but is is a long established principle that wider community requirements have precedence. Therefore this was an inadequately sourced bio and in closing I gave weight to arguments reflecting wider community norms rather than narrow subject based views out of kilter with community wide expectations. Reyk is correct that a list is the appropriate solution. Spartaz Humbug! 11:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
How much more "adequately sourced" would you want the article to be? The fact that we included two sources which are universally agreed amongst the cricket Wikiproject to be satisfactory, disproves this. In what way was this article "inadequately sourced"? Bobo. 11:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the closer was a bit harsh on the Keep commenters in that AfD. The subject here is an athlete from a developing country where English is not the main language and he was active about 20 years ago. This suggests that Googling by Western English speakers may not provide a particularly comprehensive view of the available sources. The closing statement refers to "detailed examination of the article" but this is probably all that was done. SNGs are particularly valuable in those situations as they indicate where sources are likely to exist (the article did have enough sourcing to verify that the subject met the SNG). Given that I think it was reasonable to argue that the article should be kept on the grounds that the subject met the relevant SNG, just as it is reasonable to argue the opposite. Several of the Delete arguments are weak or dubious. Hut 8.5 12:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
And invalid - one from an IP address, one from an untraceable account, and one as per the untraceable account. Bobo. 12:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
IP's can vote at AfD, as can "untraceable accounts". Unless they are blocked, they are valid. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
True, but in this situation we could plausibly discount the comment from the IP. The "untraceable account", Rainbow unicorn, has since been indefinitely blocked for abusive sockpuppetry (the account has been renamed, which is why it doesn't immediately appear). That does bring into question whether the IP is a sockpuppet. Hut 8.5 06:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Overturn to no consensus to be clear. I think that's a better reading of the discussion, particularly if we assign reduced weight to the possible sockpuppetry. Hut 8.5 07:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Spartaz, what did you mean when you responded to my comment about "every first-class cricketer having an article except this guy" when you responded "not unless they have sourcing"? Given the sources that you were aware were present on the article, please would you explain what is wrong with these sources? If there is a fundamental problem with these sources, then there is a fundamental problem with sourcing on 90 percent of cricket articles.
You left a suspiciously lengthy justification on the deletion conversation which mentioned nothing to do with the sourcing, and now you are claiming that the "inadequate sourcing" is the problem. As far as I can tell, in this case, the problem is that you feel the article was not sourced, which anyone who is able to access the article can clearly see it was. Bobo. 13:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse As a fair reading of the consensus. While there is some debate over whether individual SNGs override the broad GNG guidelines (WP:PROF being one I participated in recently) it is made pretty clear at WP:NSPORTS that the sport specific notability guidelines are a guide to help people decide if something might be notable, not an automatic inclusion. This was pointed out at the discussion. It was also pretty clear from that discussion that this article only just met the SNG and was not even close to the GNG. Those !votes that simply said that it meets WP:NCRIC without indicating how the article also complies with the GNGs were rightly given less weight. AIRcorn (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse mostly per Aircorn. The speedy deletion was appropriate as the two states of the article were, for all intents and purposes, the same. The AfD discussion was also closed appropriately, with respect to the arguments made and the import of the quoted guidelines. Harrias talk 11:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak endorseOverturn to no consensus mainly per Hut 8.5 pointing out the socking. It wasn't known at the time, but it cast doubt on at least two of the keep !votes. FWIW, yes, SNGs are equal to the GNG based on the actual guideline, which is WP:N. NSPORTS has chosen to subjugate itself to the GNG, but that is not what the community wide policy is. You have a tension between WP:N and WP:NSPORTS on this one, with the former considering the latter equivalent to the GNG, but the latter saying the GNG take prominence. That makes sports AfDs difficult to deal with. If it weren't for the socking, I'd have called this no consensus.TonyBallioni (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I think you might have this the wrong way round - the sockmaster and the IP !voted Delete, not Keep. Hut 8.5 21:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Oh goodness, I did misread that didn't I. Thanks for pointing it out: I've amended my !vote accordingly. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC as far as I an tell the SNG and GNG run on parallel tracks here. What I mean is that NSPORTS doesn't specifically defer to the GNG (" Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." So an argument that the topic meets the SNG is just as valid as one that says it meets the GNG (as long as it's true). I do think in this case there could be an argument that this person shouldn't have an article. He did participate, but only just barely. Seems like a bit too low of a bar IMO. But the right place to debate this is at the SNG or the AfD. And if you weigh the SNG and GNG arguments equally, there is no consensus to delete. And that's without considering the socking issues. Hobit (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Just barely" is not the point - and in any case, unverifiable. We are looking at absolutes - yes and no - and not cloudy "maybe" criteria. "Just barely" is yes. Bobo. 00:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be. The SNG gives room for not including everyone who meets it. Quite specifically. And this case (very minor player on a fairly minor team) seems like a good case for using that discretion. I'd likely !vote to delete on that basis (meets the letter of the SNG, but not the spirit basically). But that's not the direction the discussion went. It was "meets the SNG" vs. "The GNG trumps the SNG". On a good day, that's NC given the numbers. Given that the GNG doesn't trump _this_ SNG (per the long-established SNG itself), the keep side had the better argument. I think there _is_ a solid deletion argument to be had. But it didn't get consensus. Hobit (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hobit: Are we reading the same guideline? The "Applicable Policies and Guidelines" section led me to pretty much the opposite conclusion. In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline.. The "Basic Criteria" section seems to support this as well by prominently linking to WP:BASIC which is basically the GNG. AIRcorn (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Good point, I had missed that. It also says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." I think that's a pretty clear statement that meeting one or the other is enough. Feels like different parts written by different people with different goals. That does weaken my argument though I don't think crushes it. Hobit (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, there probably needs to be some clarification on these guidelines no matter what way this unfolds. AIRcorn (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse - After taking a close look at the AfD, the relevant guidelines and discounting Rainbow Unicorn's !vote (I am not inclined to discount the IP as there is no evidence that it is a sockpuppet of any other user - though their argument holds no weight) I have to endorse the close. The basic keep argument was simply that the article met NCRIC. This is simply not enough. NSPORTS (and therefore NCRIC) is subservient to GNG as quoted from WP:NSPORTS itself; In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Thus, it must be argued, that the articles failure to meet GNG holds significantly more weight than its success in meeting NCRIC. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what the countering delete argument was saying; that while it might just barely meet NCRIC it comprehensively failed to meet WP:GNG or WP:N. Side-note; Hobit and TonyBallioni, in this case the SNG requires the article to meet GNG. They are not on parallel tracks. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Mr rnddude From WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; (emphasis mine). NSPORTS contradicts the text of WP:N, which explicitly lists it as equal to the GNG. To borrow an old maxim: when the law is unclear, there is no law. The people involved with it couldn't figure out how to sort out the ambiguity. When that's the case, we keep an article, not delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Interesting, I hadn't noted that, though that's hardly a contradiction. Per your quoted material, the criteria outlined by the subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right (NSPORTS in this case) is that it must meet GNG to receive a standalone article. This goes hand-in-hand with N which also states that meeting either the GNG or SNG is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page (page meaning article). It looks like a mess, but, it's relatively clean to parse out. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Oh, and btw, pings like this won't work. You have to either create a new comment or delete the old one, save the page, then repaste it with the fix and a new sig and then resave the page. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Its a strong tension at the very least, and yes. You raise a very good point: these are simply guidelines and we can choose to exclude something included by them or vice versa. The issue here is that there wasn't a consensus to do either. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This contradiction was part of my confusion all along, I quoted at the time that the entire fact that the two guidelines contradicted each other meant that we could safely ignore both... Bobo. 08:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni, Hobit, and Hut 8.5:. In case you were unaware a RFC was opened earlier this year on the SNG vs GNG debate at the village pump here. The closing statement says amoung other things thatThere is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline.). It might just be a case of WP:N needing updating. AIRcorn (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
That was a horribly written close that was beyond the scope of the discussion, and there is currently an RfC at WT:PROF that is about to conclude the exact opposite. There is no backdoor way around changing WP:N. Our guidelines remain in tension here, and likely will remain in tension. Like above, these are all just guidelines anyway, and we can include something that fails WP:N if there is good cause, and delete something that passes it. The issue here is that there was no consensus to do either. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I remember participating in that discussion. One person suggested "a single season" or an individual championship in a given sport. How do you even define that? Does someone have to participate in every game in a single season? For English soccer players, that's all 38 games. For baseball players, that's 162 games. That's simply infeasible. I bet only 2 percent of any sportsmen would qualify under this, if that...
The fact that all three levels of consensus were seemingly reached in the debate makes me question whether any consensus was reached... just as I expressed at the time: "Let's take NCRIC for an example. One first-class appearance. Want to make it two? Three? Fifty? Fine. Offer that suggestion as an alternative. State NPOV reasons why. But doing so is more POV than any existing guideline." Bobo. 10:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: if you find fault with the close, follow the steps at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE#Challenging other closures. Until then, the close stands. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The problem is deciding whether some subject has passed the GNG or not. It is impossible to prove absolutely that a subject does not satisfy the GNG, because you can't check every possible source in existence. The most you can say is that you made a reasonable effort to find sources and failed. What constitutes a reasonable effort varies from topic to topic. Here we have reason to think that a simple English language Google search may miss relevant sources, so the fact that this has been done does not mean the subject doesn't pass the GNG. If you read a bit further down the RfC close you'll see that it does discuss this issue and suggests that somebody might want to draw up an intermediate standard for this situation. AFAIK that has not happened so I have no problem with people using the SNG for this. Hut 8.5 17:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is no need to challenge that close since it didn't actually affect WP:N, and if it did it would be reverted instantly as not being within the scope of the RfC, which was on NSPORT, not N. What it told us was that there was dissatisfaction with that specific SNG and that people felt not meeting the GNG was grounds for deletion even if it met the SNG. Sure, I think I even argued that in the RfC. What it did not do was change the overall notability guideline, which includes WP:NPOSSIBLE, which is effectively what the SNGs exist to show. Arguing to delete based on the GNG and to keep based on an SNG are both equally valid arguments under WP:N, which is just a guideline, and WP:NHC tells us If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. Since the views here on which notability standard to use were split, there was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse, both the G4 and the original discussion. The requirement for articles like this (and this one is most probably a BLP) to pass the WP:GNG is well documented above so I won't repeat it, but that is reason enough for endorse. I'll add that as a cricket fan, I'm going to guess that in the development of WP:NCRIC, situations like this were not considered and keeping articles like this may have not been the intended outcome. I'm also reminded of a similar baseball-themed case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball). Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC).
The fact that User:Go Phightins! picks exactly the same logical hole in the two guidelines as we do proves that we, as a Wikiproject, aren't on our own... I'm not saying they're right therefore we're right therefore the argument is wrong, I'm just saying that we're not alone in having found that logical fallacy. Bobo. 13:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The problem with most of the WP:SNGs is they tend to be written by fans of that topic, and tend to be overly-inclusive. And, the idea that a small number of people in a wikiproject can write a SNG which trumps the WP:GNG is absurd. The AfD close got this exactly right. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

UST Student Organizations Coordinating Council (closed)[edit]

16 September 2017[edit]

15 September 2017[edit]

11 September 2017[edit]

Archive[edit]

2017
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2016
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2015
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2014
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2013
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2012
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2011
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2010
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2009
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2008
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2007
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2006
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December