Skip to: Active discussions Recent discussions Archive (purge cache)

Shortcut WP:DRV

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.

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.

If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.

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

Any editor may express their 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.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

• *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
• *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
• *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
• *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

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. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

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.

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.

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. 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 closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
• If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

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.)

• Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
• 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 or sockpuppet 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".

2024 Canada railway shutdown (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Three rationales were provided for why the closer chose the result she did:

First, the issue of systemic bias, which boiled down to keeping this because it happened in Canada. This has nothing to do with any notability guideline, and there are some problematic implications of giving different countries different worth in deletion discussions (this is ignoring the various nationalistic aspersions, which are beyond the purview of this forum).

Second is that there are "ample sources demonstrating notability". This suggests the closer did not look closely at the sources, which are all news articles about the event itself. Simply being in the news indicates primary source coverage that does not meet GNG's requirement of secondary coverage (the whole point of which is that reliable sources should be choosing which news stories are notable, not Wikipedia editors). If you're not familiar with the use of newspapers in historiography, WP:PRIMARYNEWS has a good explainer.

Third is that other articles haven't been deleted, which is about as textbook an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as it gets.

Every keep argument was based on these three arguments, generic "I consider this important or consequential" statements, or crystal ball speculation about whether it might be notable in the future. There's no scenario where the arguments at this AfD result in a keep without a headcount or a supervote. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• News articles are considered by many (most?) editors on enwiki to be secondary sources, not primary sources, based on what I've seen. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But news articles aren’t necessarily secondary sources. If news piece simply regurgitates press releases and controlled, scripted interview quotes, it is merely a convenient bundling of primary sources. A lot of coverage of strikes, lockouts, and other labor difficulties look exactly like this. Union rep said such-and-such, company executive said this-and-that, politician said bleah-and-meh. Dust it with a few related facts about the impact of the industry on the nation, as likely as not cribbed from wiki itself these days, and you gotcherself a byline. Qwirkle (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This encapsulates a lot of the misunderstanding, including one of the !votes citing NOTNEWS. Most anything Wikipeida would cite for an article of national significance, even in Canada, doesn't represent anything other than independent, reliable secondary sourcing. The burden of proof should really be on those who assert that it is not, to demonstrate from our policies why it is not. Jclemens (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even wikipedia disagrees with you: "Secondary sources in history and humanities are usually books or scholarly journals, from the perspective of a later interpreter, especially by a later scholar." Qwirkle (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My closure statement wasn't really that long, I think you are reading a lot into it. Participants disagreed on whether or not news stories are primary sources and whether they can help establish notability and I brought up the example of the article on the attempted assasination of Donald Trump where news sources are accepted as sources as that point was mentioned in the discussion.

Bottom line though, I thought the arguments for Keep were stronger than the arguments to Delete (which basically denied notability) and I saw more support for a Keep outcome than Delete. I didn't think much would change with a Relisting but if you would prefer that, and there is support among editors here at DRV, I'm comfortable reverting my closure, relisting and letting another admin close the discussion. I close a lot of AFDS and my ego is not invested in an individual discussion. It is also not a "supervote" because I honestly have no opinion on the outcome of this discussion. If I'd seen more support for Delete (and that is not just a headcount), then the closure would have been Delete. My job is to assess consensus, not to impose an opinion of my own. If I do have an opinion (which happens occasionally), I participate in the AFD and would not close the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Slice it any way you want, there is simply no consensus to delete. You'd have to discard three quarters of the Keep views to see a Delete consensus; now that would be a supervote. Would a "No consensus" close appease the appellant? The only practical difference would be an earlier potential renomination, which I'm okay with. Owen× ☎ 06:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is a misreading or misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARYNEWS to think is says that newspaper articles about events are therefore primary. These days few journalists go out and about and observe or directly report on events as they happen. The question usually is how much the printed news article has been regurgitated from original reporting. Thincat (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was no consensus to delete. There's usually no point in debating an administrator's closing statement when the outcome can not be different.—Alalch E. 08:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfD result. This is a severely notable event that caused and is causing harm to Canada's economy as a whole. And there were several more keeps than deletes. I'm sorry if this comes off as hostile but I'm just telling it how it is. The AFD closure should stand and filing this review was unnecessary and I feel like you're just trying to get an article in a good, detailed state deleted. Just because an article uses primary sourcing as its primary reference source doesn't mean it should be deleted. If that was the case every single article on Wikipedia should be deleted as most articles cite news publications as their primary means of sourcing, and sourcing alone doesn't qualify an article to eligible for deletion. I literally live in Canada, and have all my life. This is a severely notable event that is impacting all Canadians, and the union has now moved to file a legal challenge against the CIRB for its decision. Trying to get this article deleted is unfair. Not to mention, you gave a reason in your delete argument that being in the news doesn't make something notable. It literally does. The whole point of news is to cover notable events and stories going around in the world. News coverage does make something notable, so your AfD argument goes against many of Wikipedia's own policies. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 09:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as correct and thoughtful reading of consensus. Jclemens (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I haven't !voted in the AFD, but I do think the closure was correct. Though there were some arguments citing WP:NOTNEWS, especially during the first few days, the later !votes were predominantly "keep" !votes, and at least one of these (Novem Linguae's) provided sufficient sourcing that goes beyond WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources. Thus, I do not think the discussion would have closed with any consensus to delete. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article has been expanded upon since the last deletion/redirect post. There is no reason for it to be merged. If merged into the proposed page, the blurb for the character will become too long.

Editing my point as people pointed out that I didn't expand on it so I'll expand it using the reply I replied to Cyrptic under.

"I did not look into the history and see that template but the talk page of Megumin still says "This article was nominated for deletion on 26 September 2022. The result of the discussion was merge."

I created this deletion review because I don't believe it warrants a nomination for deletion anymore. The deletion request itself also states the merge which can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megumin. I am contesting this deletion request under the premise that it no longer warrants a nomination for deletion. Like you pointed out in your comment, it was so quickly removed under "false pretenses" despite the decision being made to merge the page.

If the talk page still says it is a candidate of deletion, it should be taken that it is a candidate for deletion. I looked into how I could contest this deletion nomination. I looked into Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion but considering the page has not been deleted yet, it would not fall under that title. There were multiple people involved in the discussion of the deletion so even if I was to post under there, it still wouldn't fit the criteria.

I agree that the Megumin page is a little bit of a weird unique spot due to it having information that could be put into a blurb and doesn't need its own separate page to be expanded upon. Despite this unique situation, there are is also information regading the character that would infringe on the whole purpose of the list of characters, this being that it is supposed to summarize what the character is about. If we merged the page, it would cause information in certain sections to be nonexistent and unable to be added to the blurb. An example of such is the reception section which would be quite difficult to put into the blurb of the list without expanding on it in the blurb itself. This could be potentially confusing for people who are only looking for a summary of the character, not what fans think of the character.

Considering the fact that this article would not fall under Wikipedia:Proposed deletion due to the deletion request having objections throughout the discussion of deleting the page makes this deletion review valid.

In addition, the edits that have been made since the deletion discussion have expanded upon the character tremendously. This makes the nomination for deletion questionable. If Megumin's page has been expanded upon to include information that would be difficult to put in a blurb, does it require a nomination for deletion?

Finally, the last point I want to make to contest this nomination of deletion is the fact that Megumin's page gets a lot of views on her page. There are clearly people interested on what the character is about so limiting the information on what the character is about would go the whole point behind this article: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility

This article doesn't just imply the accessibility to making web pages easier to navigate and read, but it in another way also means that people should have access to all the information which is expanded upon here: Wikipedia#Readership. In particular, the article states, "Wikipedia has steadily gained status as a general reference website since its inception in 2001.".

If Wikipedia is used as a reference website and the information on Megumin cannot be condensed into her blurb without it interfering with the whole purpose behind the page being a list of characters (summarizing what the character is about and their significance to the plot), then this deletion review has a valid argument."

Edit note: I'd like to correct myself, the article didn't imply it, it stated that accessibility is about web pages being easy to navigate. I misworded it when I wrote it. Just wanted to clear that up.

In addition, I want to add a few other things that I forget to add in that reply.

Looking at Megumin's page, there is also a section for creation regarding the character. Merging the page to this would remove all the information in that section (which includes images and sources). Removing the page would completely remove a lot of information as the page would lose a lot of substance regarding the character as the information would be forced to be condensed.

Thank you for those who pointed this out and I hope this helps for those who want a better understanding behind the reason of why I created the deletion review.

Reader of Information (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If there was a process error here, it was that the afd-merge-to template was so quickly removed under false pretenses. —Cryptic 14:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not look into the history and see that template but the talk page of Megumin still says "This article was nominated for deletion on 26 September 2022. The result of the discussion was merge."

  I created this deletion review because I don't believe it warrants a nomination for deletion anymore.

  The deletion request itself also states the merge which can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megumin. I am contesting this deletion request under the premise that it no longer warrants a nomination for deletion. Like you pointed out in your comment, it was so quickly removed under "false pretenses" despite the decision being made to merge the page.

  If the talk page still says it is a candidate of deletion, it should be taken that it is a candidate for deletion. I looked into how I could contest this deletion nomination. I looked into Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion but considering the page has not been deleted yet, it would not fall under that title. There were multiple people involved in the discussion of the deletion so even if I was to post under there, it still wouldn't fit the criteria.

  I agree that the Megumin page is a little bit of a weird unique spot due to it having information that could be put into a blurb and doesn't need its own separate page to be expanded upon. Despite this unique situation, there are is also information regading the character that would infringe on the whole purpose of the list of characters, this being that it is supposed to summarize what the character is about.

  If we merged the page, it would cause information in certain sections to be nonexistent and unable to be added to the blurb. An example of such is the reception section which would be quite difficult to put into the blurb of the list without expanding on it in the blurb itself. This could be potentially confusing for people who are only looking for a summary of the character, not what fans think of the character.

  Considering the fact that this article would not fall under Wikipedia:Proposed deletion due to the deletion request having objections throughout the discussion of deleting the page makes this deletion review valid.

  Furthermore, the edits that have been made since the deletion discussion have expanded upon the character. This makes the nomination for deletion questionable. If Megumin's page has been expanded upon to include information that would be difficult to put in a blurb, does it require a nomination for discussion.

  Finally, the last point I want to make to contest this nomination of deletion is the fact that Megumin's page gets a lot of views on her page. There are clearly people interested on what the character is about so limiting the information on what the character is about would go the whole point behind this article: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility

  This article doesn't just imply the accessibility to making web pages easier to navigate and read, but it in another way also means that people should have access to all the information which is expanded upon here: Wikipedia#Readership. In particular, the article states, "Wikipedia has steadily gained status as a general reference website since its inception in 2001.".

  If Wikipedia is used as a reference website and the information on Megumin cannot be condensed into her blurb without it interfering with the whole purpose behind the page being a list of characters (summarizing what the character is about and their significance to the plot), then my deletion review has a valid point.

Reader of Information (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction, it's not that the article doesn't imply it, it states it. I misworded it when I wrote it. Just wanted to clear that up. Reader of Information (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and execute the merge (uninvolved). The consensus was correctly interpreted and the eventual outcome was unilaterally subverted by an editor as noted by Cryptic. The appellant has not stated a rationale for why the merge consensus was wrongly reached or articulated what exactly would make the outcome different today ("the article has been expanded" is not a reason to overturn an AfD decision). Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please check my reply to Cryptic's comment. I did add a valid point to my arugment. Reader of Information (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction, it's not that the article doesn't imply it, it states it. I misworded it when I wrote it. Just wanted to clear that up. Reader of Information (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry. Replied to the wrong comment. My bad. Reader of Information (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I've edited my original post to include what you pointed out. Reader of Information (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Keep. I see four !votes to merge, three to keep, and a nomination that can be read as supporting a merger or redirect. I see no reason to discard any of those views, nor to give any of them more weight than others. If the Keeps were Deletes, then a merge would definitely be the obvious ATD. But absent consensus, a merge cannot be an alternative to Keep. True, "the article has been expanded" is not a reason to overturn an AfD decision, but in this case, no expansion is needed, as the original close was incorrect. Owen× ☎ 15:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi,

  I agree that it was not written as merge but merging implies you delete the article to put the content into the redirected article. However, I edited upon my original post as people pointed out there was no substance. If you re-read the post I edited, I wrote the following, "Looking at Megumin's page, there is also a section for creation regarding the character. Merging the page to this would remove all the information in that section (which includes images and sources). Removing the page would completely remove a lot of information as the page would lose a lot of substance regarding the character the information would be forced to be condensed."

  This is a valid argument I made regarding it being merged. There is no forum (to my knowledge, feel free to correct me on this), that is used for reviewing merges.

  Considering the article was closed due to the consensus of it being merged, even if its incorrect, it does not deny the fact that some felt it should be merged.

  Hence, why this review was made because although the close was incorrect, the discussion regarding the deletion/merge was valid. Such, although the views shouldn't be neglected, it is still important to allow those who supported its merge to give weight to the situation even if it means contesting it on the review . Reader of Information (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have trouble deciphering your reply, Reader of Information. Do you no longer want the article kept? If you still want the article kept as a standalone page, why are you arguing with me? I never claimed the views to merge were wrong, just that they failed to achieve consensus. Owen× ☎ 15:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, English isn't my first language so sometimes I'll misunderstand. Re-reading your reply, I misunderstood what you wrote. I apologize. I do agree the article should be kept though. Reader of Information (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize for the misunderstanding @OwenX Reader of Information (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - What exactly is being requested by the appellant? The AFD was closed as Merge, which, if I understand what that means, should have resulted in the article being cut down to a redirect after moving information from the article into the parent article. As Cryptic notes, that was not done. Is the appellant asking to undo the closure of Merge and so ratify the failure to merge? If so, are they saying that there was an error by the closer, or that there is new information, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am requesting for the decision to be overturned to keep the article and thus stop the merge. My reasoning behind this is the fact that it has not be executed yet and there is new information to the article that warrants its stay. This can be seen through the creation article. If we go to the target page and look at the section, it is a list to describe what the characters are about and their significance to the plot.

  Yet the information on Megumin’s page does not only include the information about the character but the history behind its creation as well as the reception of the character.

  Not only this but the fact that there was an error on the due process is why the opportunity for me to appeal this was allowed lol. 😂

  While it is important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the source of ALL information a lot of the arguments in the XFD were made about sources at the time of it being written. Looking at the article now, that reasoning has become invalid as the sources are well documented with over 36 sources being cited. Reader of Information (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the merge, since the AfD's result is in question above - it wasn't a great discussion but you can't close that as keep because the keep argument that there was SIGCOV was rebutted. The problem is it's been almost two years and no merge has occurred. I cannot tell if the article currently passes GNG since it's a specialty topic area, and I haven't found really one that does yet but I could be wrong there. I don't really see a reason to enforce the merge at this point - my sense is that if anyone wants to send this for another AfD they should be able to do so. SportingFlyer T·C 22:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with the rebuttal under SIGCOV.

  All the rebuttal mentioned was that the fact that all they could find at the time was related to what the character was about.

  I believe that the article can pass because in one of the guidelines I remember reading it stated something along the lines of if the article cannot be explained outside of the article then it warrants its own page or something along those lines.

  This is a double edged sword as yes the article can be explained outside of the article and be put into one page but it also worth noting that if we were to condense all the information we would be missing information regarding the character regardless.

  One of Wikipedia’s main points is that if we are gonna transfer all the information we should make sure it won’t be too long. The issue with that is I think we barely can explain the situation of the character with its reception and creation without it warranting its own page which is also mentioned in the guideline I once read. I’ll reply to this comment if I can find what I was mentioning. Reader of Information (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer Furthermore, I highly recommend you look at the sources page. There are over 12 sources relating to Megumin. I think it warrants enough attention under SIGCOV to be its own page. Reader of Information (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No action. Nominator says There is no reason for it to be merged, but the article has not been merged years later, and so there is no need to do anything. The close has not been challenged so there's no need to endorse. Some comments: The discussion did not consider the target article. The reality is probably that there is nothing to merge. Content about Megumin had already been included in the suggested target and that content has only changed superficially since the AfD. All editors !voting merge wanted is for the Megumin article to stop existing as a stand-alone article. The first merge !vote in the discussion is purely an argument to delete with no reference to the target article (apart from merely mentioning it), followed by a "per X" and two additional inferred perexes. All of those are basically redirect !votes. The merge "consensus" is purely historical.—Alalch E. 09:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with the merge consensus being historical.

  Since the historical part of it no longer is accurate, I believe it should be kept which is why I am appealing the merge decision so the article is kept. Reader of Information (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no need for that, it was kept through the force of circumstance. —Alalch E. 13:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. However, the talk page still lists as it being merged. It can confuse potential editors. Reader of Information (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of JG 5 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am appealing the deletion of the template ((Knight's Cross recipients of JG 5)). The template was deleted in context of a bulk nomination (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 30#Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 1st ID). Since 2017, all of the referenced entries in that template have been fully expanded, many attaining B-class or higher ratings with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. The layout of the template follows similar templates such as ((WWII women snipers)), ((Female HSU Partisans)), ((Women fighter pilots WWII)), ((Heroes of the Soviet Union 37th GRD)) or ((Heroes of the Soviet Union 46th GNBR)), just to list a few. The closing editor @Godric on Leave:, alternatively known as @Winged Blades of Godric:, seems to have retired. In a related instance, the deletion was overturned in 2022, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 August 12. Pinging involved editors from 2017 @K.e.coffman and Kierzek: Thanks for the consideration. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate and restore. The 2017 deletion was correct, but clearly things have changed since then. I see no reason to deny this appeal. Owen× ☎ 09:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No action—declare all refundable. MisterBee1966 should be trusted to ask for a refund only when it's appropriate.
  MisterBee1966 appears to be the main creator of such templates of which there are many. There have been 200+ of them or more, and most have been deleted over time as not serving a navigational purpose, over many TfDs, some individual some bundled. Example older TfDs: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 24. These particular older TfDs were closed by Primefac who added to the close: REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. At that time, it seemed that there was a general agreement that these templates are okay as long as there is a sufficient population of articles for each. Normal.
  But then the consensus changed to the templates being unwanted as a type of template, which is evident in the TfD brought up by the DRV nom. The rationale for deletion wasn't that there aren't enough members, it transformed into the templates being unwanted categorically, and consensus formed around that; it must have seemed like they're all on a path of getting deleted...
  This appearance of a wider consensus was short lived, as mass-nominations continued and the deletion trend was noticed and opposed by other editors leading to a subsequent "no consensus" bundled TfD. 70 have survived up to this day (such as Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 12th PD—strange how the DRV nom did not bring such functionally identical, surviving templates as examples).
  So there is no wider sense that these templates are unwanted. All TfD's of these templates should be understood in the words of Primefac: ask for a refund when sufficient new pages are created. Starting individual DRVs would not be so great.—Alalch E. 13:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the advise given by @Alalch E.:, I have requested that the template be refunded, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Template:Knight's_Cross_recipients_of_JG_5, Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't worked in template space enough to figure out if this is valid, and I know some things have changed of late. That being said I'm not sure why this would be a template instead of a category. SportingFlyer T·C 00:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1) Wouldn't work as a category: "Category:Recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross of JG 5" would be deleted as non-encyclopedic cross-categorization.

  2) Wouldn't need to also be able to work as a category (to be "replaceable" with a category) to be justifiable as a navigation template.

  3) Even if it had worked as a category, and we had both, one would not need to go away--because overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative. —Alalch E. 08:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Peel Club (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article "The Peel Club" was drastically overhauled in its last 24 hours of editing by me, resulting in a fully compliant, high-quality, well-researched page with both primary and secondary sources. The primary source material includes authoritative references from the UK Parliament and the University of Glasgow, supplemented by various books from 1836 to 1840 that offer significant historical insights, involving two Prime Ministers.

The main contentions that justify this review are as follows: 1. The initial draft of the article was indeed underdeveloped and flagged for improvement. However, the revised version addressed all concerns raised, meeting Wikipedia's quality standards. 2. I resolved the orphan page warning by linking the article to related pages, which seemed to have drawn undue suspicion. 3. The article was deemed promotional due to my inexperience and lack of neutrality in my first attempt. However, my intention was to contribute valuable historical content on a topic I am particularly knowledgeable about. 4. Editors mistakenly refuted the connection between the new Peel Club and the original, despite the new club's clear claim to continuity. This was substantiated on the Talk page, which hosted a detailed explanation of the legitimacy of this claim. Unfortunately, this explanation was overlooked by the reviewing editors. 5. My edits were based on empirical evidence from the sources cited and accompanied by thorough justifications for each change, yet these were repeatedly undone without proper review. 6. An error on the "Glasgow University Conservative Association" page linked to this page, and my correction (including the proper use of "The" in "The Peel Club" and appropriate linking) was accurate.

This well-researched page added crucial information to Wikipedia and the editorial process that led to its deletion was hasty and dismissive of the significant improvements made. I request a review of the page to assess its professional standard and content integrity. If the page cannot be restored, I also request the recovery of the Talk page essay where I detailed my rationale for retaining the article, as it contains valuable arguments that could be used for future reference. Thank you. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but Allow Recreation - DRV is not AFD Round 2. This appeal is a rearguing of the AFD. The appellant should be allowed to submit a draft for review, or to create a new article, subject to AFD, but not subject to G4 if substantially different from the original version of the article. The version of the article that was seen by the voters is not the same as the last version of the article. Either Delete or Relist would have valid conclusions by the closer. The end result of a Relist would have been that the revisions to the article be taken into account, which is what will happen if the close is endorsed and the originator submits a draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Temp undelete for review, please. Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jclemens — done. Daniel (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the applicant's statement around drastic overhaul in the last 24 hours of editing, oldid's before and after for reference. Daniel (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the AfD concluded the topic didn't meet our inclusion guidelines. The issues are that the sources that directly address the Peel Club appear to be primary (1, 3, 5, 7?, 8) or a blog (4). 2 is showing the Peel Club was discussed (in Parliament) and might count toward WP:N, it's really not clear to me. 7 is half written by a president of the club (from 2016? our article seems to indicate it didn't exist then?), making it probably primary. So while I'm not happy with losing this article, I think the AfD's conclusion is reasonable. All that said, I have to imagine newspapers of the time had something to say about this Club. Find those things and you'll have a fine reason to recreate the article. Hobit (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist The AfD considered an admittedly stubbish and inadequate article on a topic and found it wanting, the article was then completely rewritten without any further !vote, and after the article was modified the improved version was deleted solely on the basis of !votes and a nomination addressing the older version. Neither the nomination nor either !vote supporting deletion apply to the final form of the article, and curiously, the editor expanding the article failed to log a !vote. As Robert McClenon notes, our normal process would require the deleted article be deleted G4 if reinstated, which is nonsensical as it was never commented upon by any delete !voter in its improved state. It is not DRV's job to assess whether that improved state is sufficient to merit keeping--rather, that is a job for further discussion at AfD, hence my strong preference for a relist rather than deferring to "recreate later" as my colleagues above suggest. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, the creator of the page (me) failed to log a vote due to ignorance of the system and what actions were required of me in the circumstances, thats why. Apologies. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Hobit. I see this as a WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 type appeal. We are considering new information, and while the facts relating to the state of the artile are not new relative to the closing of the AfD, the information about those facts is new. Considering whether the facts are of such importance that would merit a different fate for this page, my conclusion aligns with Hobits that they are not, because the sources are not good. The page should not be simply recreated and it is appropriate that G4 should apply to an identical recreation. It should be considered refundable to draft upon request (it could be good for the DRV closer to note that its refundable to draft).—Alalch E. 10:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but Allow Recreation As a WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 appeal, I recognize there was a lot of work done in the 24 hours prior to the AfD close. But, like Hobit, I don't see the sourcing necessary in the revised draft. That said, there are some sources from Google Scholar that mention the founding (and founders of the club) that are not yet incorporated into the article. I also do think there should be some newspaper reports of the 1839 discussions in parliament about the club. So, I think the sourcing is close, but not quite there yet and I am not quite willing to overturn based on new information or suggest a relist. --Enos733 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse looking at the improved version and the provided sources, it's still a clear delete to me. There's only one source in there which might be acceptable. I would disallow any recreation that's not in draft space. SportingFlyer T·C 16:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and draftify. The appellant did not even !vote in this discussion and did not flag the improvements to the article for the closer to see. Paul W did, but he also found the revisions and new sourcing lacking and this comment was unrebutted before closing. While a relist would have been within discretion, the consensus for delete was correctly interpreted. I am not unsympathetic to the appellant's efforts to get this article in better shape, but literally none of the sources in the revised article were independent and thus would not have changed the deletion decision had more time been granted. (I would support draftifying so the appellant and other editors have a chance to find independent sources to support the notability claim before submitting through AfC.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as the original nominator. I did take time to review the updated revision and its sources, but I'm still unconvinced of the reliability of this organization and of the validity of the sources. They still seem to be mostly primary and WP:SELFPUB as per Hobit's argument. I can't support a relist, as I don't believe it would result in a different outcome, and would likely just result in more of the appellant bludgeoning the process as they did in the first discussion. Recreation at a later date via draft/AfC is possible if new, better sourcing comes up, but as it stands nothing they added would likely stand in a new AfD discussion. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 21:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

There is various speculation among editors here about what is really going on with this page. I am not an editor and have no knowledge of Wikipedia processes.

I am posting here to confirm that ‘The Peel Club’ is a very recent formation. The current formation is a group of fewer than twenty acquaintances who have held one dinner. While I’m sure lots of the people involved are perfectly decent, none are in any way presently notable. It is hard to see how any combination or permutation of the current membership could be notable or of public significance. The Peel Club is currently being heavily pushed on Instagram. Screenshots of the Wikipedia page (in the brief moments it has been live) have been used in Instagram stories seemingly to push the Club’s credibility and make a claim on an entirely unrelated history.

Editors are right to observe that there is no formal relationship with the Carlton. Several members of the Carlton Club have been surprised by the alleged association - Hellenic Accountant calls the clubs “sisters” somewhere in this discussion - and are establishing the facts of any association with the Carlton directly.

It’s naff; the President (an autocrat according to the website!) knows it’s naff; and this Wikipedia page is an attempt to look less naff. Themuffinman96 (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suggest that the various editors saying "the revised version still didn't demonstrate adequate sourcing" are re-arguing the AfD, something we've said on many occasions isn't DRV's job. If we're going to review sourcing in this case, then by all means let's allow DRV reviewers to evaluate sourcing arguments all the time. I note that I have specifically avoided reviewing the sources out of just this concern, although I don't doubt these concerns are valid... is the process valid, or should the mess be sent back to AfD for re-consideration? SmittenGalaxy, Dclemens1971, SportingFlyer, Enos733, Alalch E., Hobit Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said above, I think the process was valid. The appellant made significant changes to the article but did not signal this to the closer on the AfD page! The only !voter to discuss the addition did not think it warranted a change in outcome. The closer could have relisted, but really why? There was a quorum for "delete" and only one !voter bludgeoning the process and not advancing policy-based arguments. No process errors by closer, consensus interpreted correctly, done. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The arguments I brought up were mostly because these were explicitly mentioned by the appellate, otherwise I'd see no reason to mention article content at all. My belief is the process was done correctly, though I still believe even if there is error found in the close that the article wouldn't survive AfD again in its current state. Relisting wouldn't serve much purpose even if the close was invalid, which I believe it was not. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 01:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't AfD number two - I was brief in my endorse, but I was looking specifically at whether the article had been improved enough to merit a relist, which did require looking at the sources. It's also not necessarily a bad thing to review sources, especially if the discussion was mistaken. SportingFlyer T·C 05:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The process was not pretty but it was valid. I think the most useful approach is to treat it as valid and to cover late changes to the article that have not been significantly addressed in the AfD as a WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 appeal, i.e. to treat it as new information brought to DRV to review, and when DRV participants review new information consisting of additional references they have to review sourcing, and I don't think that this should be equated to "AfD round 2", but I agree that it looks a little similar on the surface. —Alalch E. 10:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do believe there is a difference between not relitigating the AfD and reviewing "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page." In this case, the appellant significantly revised the article late in the process. One of those additions was the fact that parliament discussed the (first iteration of the) club. To me, this would qualify as "significant new information" (even as the underlying source may not contribute to notability). The addition also changed the focus of the article from the modern club to the historical club. So, to answer the question, yes, the process of reviewing new information is valid, even if this is a (relatively) rare reason for appeal. -

  Enos733 (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I could see reopening this for another week if the improvements to the article had gone totally unnoticed at the afd (such as happened here), but it was noticed and did get further discussion. There's no reason to think that relisting this for the nominator here to further bludgeon the discussion would result in anything different. Endorse. —Cryptic 11:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can the appellant be blocked from commenting further in this DRV? An obvious case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT w/r/t the primary sources and WP:NOTHERE generally; moreover, the formatting of their responses is disruptive to anyone trying to follow the rest of the conversation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seconding this; they're just bludgeoning the process in almost the exact same way they were doing on the original AfD. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 01:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've restored this debate to being an effective process through very liberal use of ((collapse top)) to remove the disruptive bludgeoning — before and after. I agree that this editor probably needs to be blocked from this DRV, but as the person who took the action here, I'd rather another administrator use their tools than myself (call it a hyper-sensitive approach to INVOLVED, if you will). Daniel (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Before getting all caught up in process (what is DRV, perceived bludgeoning or not), I've reviewed the revised version of the article. While the notability-centred arguments for deletion at the AFD may have been made on an earlier version, they seem to apply to the current version as well, which is not materially different in that regard. So I don't see prima facie evidence that consensus would have been judged inappropriately. It is certaintly possible that with enough effort, additional independent sources adequate to get over the notability hurdle can be found, and so no objection to a future draft being reviewed and ultimately accepted at the AfC process or similar. But it will need to look significantly different than the current version, and it is distinctly possible (in fact probable) that notability is just not there at this time. Martinp (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collective PAC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I objected to the original proposed deletion and my objection stands. Collective PAC is sufficiently notable. Stefanie and Quentin James don't have Wikipedia pages and this page is a sufficient landing site for information about them as well. The lister then re-proposed the article for deletion. The Cunctator (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the perceived problem is that Quentin James is notable but Collective PAC, the correct solution would be to preserve its content and redirect it to Quentin James, instead of deleting the Collective PAC article. But simply keeping a well-referenced article would be just as reasonable. --The Cunctator (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. With only two participants, this must be treated as a soft deletion. Although this might be an exercise in futility, as the appellant hasn't presented anything that would save the article from failing the next AfD, this time with quorum for a hard-delete. Relisting is also acceptable, now that this received more attention. Owen× ☎ 21:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where, precisely, do you come up with "must be"? —Cryptic 22:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know how you interpret WP:NOQUORUM's few or no comments, but a single supporting !vote after a nomination is as few as it gets. Owen× ☎ 00:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I'll repeat. Where are you coming up, specifically, with "must be"? WP:NOQUORUM says such deletion discussions should be treated as expired prods, which is very different. It further goes on to say that if the closing administrator thinks that would be controversial - and I've seen no contradictory evidence as to Explicit's thought process - or if the page has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, which it has, then the closer may use his best judgement. Closing according to the nomination is not just within that discretion, it's (ahem) explicitly among the example options. —Cryptic 11:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore as a challenged soft deletion, subject to immediate AfD by any editor per RENOM, with advice to the appellant to use that time to wisely address the problems identified. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Overturn to no consensus as ineligible for soft deletion and lacking a quorum to come to a delete or keep outcome, on the basis of further/subsequent discussion. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This notion that not just the usual supermajority, but a majority of above 100% is required for deletion has no basis whatsoever in either policy or guidelines. Had The Cunctator used the reasoning above and in his removal of the prod template - solely that the subject is "sufficiently notable", without any evidence or further reasoning - this would have been an entirely anodyne deletion, as a very weak keep straight out of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, that had been thoroughly rebutted. Silence in a debate must not be taken as a stronger argument than actually participating in it. —Cryptic 11:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Absent a minimum number of eligible participants in a discussion ("quorum"), one or two editors in agreement form a unanimity... but not a consensus. Nothing "above 100%" is required, nor is it a sensible concept. Try this, instead: two in agreement in a deletion discussion are not enough to consider the process appropriately completed, and after sufficient relists without sufficient input, "no consensus" is the appropriate conclusion for such a discussion. You don't have to agree with me, but I'd appreciate it if you understood where I'm coming from. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• weak endorse As I read No Quorum, one option for the closer in this case is "closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal". In this case that would be to delete the article. So closing as delete is an option in a situation like this. I'm not thrilled with that in general--I don't really want No quorum situations to result in deletion. In this case I think it was probably the right call--the sources are thin, with that Hill article being the best I can find. The second reference to the Collective PAC is almost enough to count as a source for WP:N. But A) we need multiple sources and B) "almost". All that said, I think soft delete should be the norm in situations like this and so I can only weakly endorse. Or put differently: "Probably not what we should be doing, but within the rules I think and the right outcome in this case."Hobit (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No one is claiming the deletion was incorrect. What NOQUORUM tells us is that an article deleted under such conditions is soft-deleted, like an expired PROD, and is restored at the request of any editor in good standing. Owen× ☎ 08:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @OwenX:. I think we are reading that differently.

  • "If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:"

  And one of the options there is "closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal". Soft deleting is also listed as an option.

  I think that means that the closer can accept the nominator's proposal, in this case, just deleting. Do you disagree with that reading? Sorry my formatting isn't great...Hobit (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All you said is true. Again, the admin closed that AfD correctly. But now that we have a legitimate request for undeletion/recreation, we have no valid reason to deny it based solely on that poorly attended discussion. Owen× ☎ 22:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Not eligible for soft deletion after being deprodded. The deprodder could have opposed deletion in the AfD but didn't. It was relisted three times. Absence of arguments that the article is suitable for retention in this context and in this period means that deletion was appropriate, and so this is just an ordinary hard-delete AfD.—Alalch E. 11:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I understand your logic. If it's not eligible for soft deletion, yet was deleted without quorum, then the best course of action would be to correct this in a minimally-disruptive way, not to cement the mistake just because the original deprodder failed to show up. I don't think the situation calls for an overturn, but refund upon request should still apply here. Owen× ☎ 12:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The logic is that the deletion process was followed correctly, that there was consensus to delete with low participation, but consensus nevertheless ("no quorum" is a symbolic way to say that the participation is unsatisfactory, but it doesn't mean that a low-participation AfD can not produce consensus, and the problem of participation is now systemic; also there were three relists and no one !voted keep, not even the deprodder), and that the result of that process was what we want to happen. There's no specific problem here really, what happened does not disrupt the encyclopedia; it can be reasonably assumed that the page that was deleted was a page that should have been deleted under the deletion policy. A refund to draftspace upon request should be a given if the article was not deleted for serious reasons (BLP, etc.), and should not require anything from DRV. In practice, at WP:REFUND, administrators might decline. It would be good to note in the close of this DRV that it's fine to refund to draft. If an identical recreation is brought back into mainspace, G4 will and should apply. The mover from draft to article space should be responsible that the article is made better. —Alalch E. 13:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOQUORUM reads clear enough to me. I don't see any provision there that says, "But if you wait long enough and no one else shows up, you can call this a quorum anyway". I agree with you that deletion was the correct outcome, and I never claimed the close was disruptive or incorrect in any way. But unless we're ready to trample policy by wielding IAR, then this was a no-quorum close, and should be treated as such. This means refund to mainspace upon any legitimate request, and a judicious--if any--application of G4 unless and until we can re-close this with quorum. Owen× ☎ 14:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "NOQUORUM" is a shortcut, a symbolic representation for a particular being of process which is extending PROD into AfD to label some deletions as "soft", and the guideline does not really talk about quorum in the sense that quorum is mandated for consensus forming. Wikipedia:Consensus does not either. It doesn't even use the word "quorum" in its actual text. There's no "there must be quorum for a consensus-based deletion". There's a "should" a "Generally, ...", a "may", but nothing definitive with respect to a hard quorum requirement. As a being of process, soft-deletion only makes sense within the constraints of the process. We would IAR-ing now to repurpose soft deletion for this situation, outside of those constraints. —Alalch E. 14:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Alalch E., I apologize for going on vacation and not checking Wikipedia when someone *relisted for deletion* a deletion to which I had *already* objected. (Note to self: "deprodder" is jargon for "someone who objects to a proposed deletion", as "PROD" is the abbreviation for "proposed deletion" and "DEPROD" the abbreviation for "objecting to a proposed deletion".) --The Cunctator (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Cunctator: All right, I'm leaning toward reinterpreting this AfD as a no-consensus discussion involving the two participants in the AfD and you as the "keep !vote" stemming from your removal of the PROD template, but please say what the argument against deletion is, and I'm noting that you said "notable" and "well-referenced", but if you could spare just a few words about why the topic is notable and what "well-referenced" means here, that will help me make up my mind. —Alalch E. 15:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that there's no consensus, then shouldn't the argument for/against deletion belong in the proposed deletion discussion in a relisting as a proposed deletion, rather than here? As Owenx has pointed out, the proper procedure is clear. --The Cunctator (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is only no consensus if you have made something to the effect (something that I am willing to construe as having that effect and by doing so I am really stretching the bounds of reasonableness) of a !vote against deletion that is not discountable, but if you have just opposed deletion while not expressing policy-based reasoning against deletion, then there was a consensus. Edit: and "notable" and "well-referenced" are close to a policy-based reasoning, and I assume that something like that is what you wrote in the edit summary when you removed the prod template. —Alalch E. 15:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I meant no quorum (in addition to no consensus). --The Cunctator (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't agree that quorum is determinative for forming a consensus. I'm not sure if you would agree that it is looking at it more broadly. An AfD in which the nominator and one respondent agree is a consensus and the WP:NOQUORUM construct is a rebuttable presumption, a fiction, that it wasn't a "real consensus" to let a third editor wave that consensus away under a presupposition that things will be better for everyone and that the dispute would have been more thoroughly resolved if there had been more participation (highly questionable). —Alalch E. 15:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the lack of a quorum, I don't think it's appropriate to debate the notability question here. That said, given that the deletion proposer accepted the notability of Quentin James, I really think this is a tempest in a teapot about whether the content that is at Collective PAC should instead be at Quentin James. E.g., is this an article about James or Collective PAC? It's certainly not a side reference to either. --The Cunctator (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The AfD nomination records your "keep !vote" thusly: An editor removed my PROD from this page on the basis that they found a more recent source--a Hill article from 2024 with 1 sentence mentioning Collective PAC and a brief quote from Quentin James.. If that is true and there was nothing better offered in your argument against deleting expressed when you deprodded, then it's a consensus, not a lack of consensus. Because objectively, it is a 1 sentence mentioning Collective PAC and a brief quote from Quentin James. It was persuasively argued that the topic is non-notable, one editor agreed, no one disagreed after an especially long time for discussion, ergo consensus.

  I believe that my view is consistent with policy. Would you start the Quentin James article so that the Collective PAC content can be refunded for the purpose of merging? That should be fine. The history could be made available at a Collective PAC redirect to Quentin James. That doesn't require doing anything to the AfD. Or the Collective PAC page can be refunded to draft and you can change its primary subject and title to Quentin James and publish it as the Quentin James article. —Alalch E. 16:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see Draft:Quentin James. —Alalch E. 17:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good to me! --The Cunctator (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, The Cunctator, but my "Allow recreation" above was based on the assumption that you (or anyone) can present a valid, notability-related argument for reviving that page. If your claim is based solely on the supposition that the deletion was improper, then I'm afraid I'm with Alalch E. on dismissing this appeal. Whether the deletion was soft or hard, it wasn't out-of-process, and absent a valid reason to restore the page, it will be left deleted. Owen× ☎ 16:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse It's not eligible for soft deletion as it's already been de-prodded, and while I agree minimal participation at an AfD should be something we're wary of, the fact it can't be soft deleted should be treated as an additional, albeit small, hurdle. I think that hurdle requires a good argument to un-delete. I don't see any compelling argument to un-delete the page, nor am I seeing many sources in a cursory WP:BEFORE search which would make me think the deletion was done in error. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe soft deletion is an option for the closer to pursue. It's very much listed as one of the 4 options for the closer in WP:NOQUORUM. But there are other options too. We all seem to think that guideline says different things, it may require a discussion and maybe a rewrite... Hobit (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved): I was the sole delete !vote in the discussion other than the nom. I agree with @OwenX that soft deletion is one option under NOQUORUM (as confirmed by this recent RfC), but, as @Hobit notes, NOQUORUM also states that "closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal" is an option in "the closer's discretion and best judgement". No argument has been presented here that deletion was not within the closer's discretion. I disagree with @Alalch E.'s proposal to treat a de-PRODing as an implicit keep !vote if the de-PRODer happens to come around to DRV. People can de-PROD for various reasons (e.g., insufficient PROD rationale or believing that the article would benefit from AfD). Additionally, this creates an easy way to game the system. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The RfC was closed with "no consensus" so as not to enable soft deletion of articles for which PROD was attempted (it's not an option), and what was effectively reaffirmed in the RfC by lack of consensus for otherwise and in light of existing practice is that articles ineligible for soft deletion and nominated for deletion are hard-deleted when consensus for deletion can be reasonably found (in spite of low participation), and that, for example (taking one of the AfD's mentioned in the RfC--as an extreme example, much more extreme than the AfD that is under review here), this 0-replies AfD with the close of delete‎. Ineligible for SOFT deletion, but there is no one supporting retention or providing any input (courtesy ping User:Star Mississippi) is good and normal: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashland, Concordia Parish, Louisiana. —Alalch E. 10:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYWC-AM (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

1. The deletion discussion was closed around an hour after it was relisted for the second time.
2. The nomination was weak as it failed to explain why the articls does not meet WP:GNG or such. And so did the recent editor who just voted to delete and salt the article.

I suggest that the deletion discussion should be re-opened for at least a few days so that other editors, including me, to share our input about the article. ASTIG😎🙃 16:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The AfD was open for over two weeks. It was closed--correctly!--as soon as there was quorum, unanimously. Per WP:RELIST: A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. If the appellant has input to share that would reverse the decision, they can present it here, rather than cryptically allude to its existence. I see no reason to waste the community's time with another kick at the can just because someone believes they have a crucial piece of evidence that would turn consensus around. Owen× ☎ 16:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• What a miserable afd. Nomination was just a delete-by-reference to DYWC, but that had only been prodded, deleted as a copyvio, and created as a bare infobox (and improperly speedied A3) before being salted. The final delete was no better; the only users editing the afd that I give any credit at all to are Badbluebus and Wcquidditch.
  That said, I can't really argue for undeletion of the article on its merits. Sources were 1 2(p99) 3 4 5 6 7(p179). I can only see 1, 4, and 5 of those, and there's really nothing there. Still, curious why it wasn't just redirected to Radio Mindanao Network, where it still has a mention.
  So while there's not much of a hump to get over to explain why it does meet WP:GNG or such, you do have to explain it. The article doesn't on its own. Convince us. —Cryptic 17:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with Cryptic - there's really no way that can be overturned, even with a weak AfD, but if a mistake has been made, it should be easy to restore. SportingFlyer T·C 17:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as per Cryptic and SportingFlyer, but do not salt. It is true that the nomination was weak, but that does not mean that the Delete !votes can or should be ignored. The closure shortly after relisting was correct because it was shortly after another Delete, and the closure correctly identified consensus to delete. Do not salt, but allow a better article or draft to be created subject to AFD or reviewed by AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Radio Mindanao Network, and leave DYWC SALTed and SALT DYWC-AM. Discourage drafting unless supported by a consensus at Talk:Radio Mindanao Network. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As nominator I'm fine with a redirect - I only took it to AfD because it had previously been redirected and then contested. But it should be salted, since we must not reward the sort of rule erosion that got us here in the first place. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The proposed redirect sounds good. SALTing seems premature in the absence of repeated recreation attempts. Owen× ☎ 21:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There were, over at DYWC (plus the reversion of the redirect here). But - as I said above - DYWC shouldn't have been salted in the first place, at least not indefinitely. It was just the one sockpuppeteer that needed deterring. —Cryptic 22:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect. There’s an obvious redirect target and page where content can be added. Protect both titles or neither. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect both titles I'm not sure if the recreation attempts are enough to SALT (I don't have a lot of experience with our rules for that), but I'm personally fine with doing so. Doesn't really make sense to have one salted and one not. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Alalch, a better way to address this is endorse and unsalt to allow redirects. The close was fine. Redirects coming latter are fine and good. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The deletion process was followed roughly correctly, and while the AfD is not pretty there is no basis for overturning. !Voting "redirect" in a deletion review suggests overturning the outcome from delete to redirect, and that is not what should be done here. Finding a suitable target for a new redirect at the name of the deleted article is not reviewing a deletion. Explicit's close should stay as it is and no changes with respect to the AfD outcome should come out of this DRV. Anyone can create the DYWC-AM redirect, which I just did. Remove protection from DYWC, as there doesn't seem to be an ongoing cause for it.—Alalch E. 10:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair, I'm undating my !vote. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation per nom. The last time I checked the article was months ago after another page I created (the sister station) was deleted. I checked the sources and they're reliable, with most of them in-depth. No idea if there were some recent changes prior to its deletion, but the now-deleted page was in a better state compared to the one salted years ago. So I believe it does meet GNG. SBKSPP (talk)
  • Which sources would you consider in-depth? I've listed all the ones from the last revision above, and the only one that comes close even at first glance is #6 (archive) - and that's almost entirely about a related television station, not the actual subject. (I still can't see any version of the two Google Books sources, though.) The only other source that was ever in the article is this, which is no better than the others. —Cryptic 12:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on the sources presented in this DRV:

  • Source 1 is just a mention in that directory. It's reliable, but pass.
  • Book 1 contains around 3 paragraphs about the station. So it's in-depth enough.
  • Source 2 (the one presented is a dead link) says part of the station's programming, despite on a couple of sentences. So it's still reliable.
  • Source 3 says part of the station's programming. So it's reliable and in-depth enough.
  • Source 4 says that the station held a concert. So it's reliable.
  • Source 5 (the one presented is a dead link) says that the station venturing into TeleRadyo. So it's reliable and in-depth enough.
  • Book 2 contains around 3 paragraphs about the station and its fate at that time. So it's in-depth enough.

  Overall the station really meets WP:GNG and I allow the article to be recreated as a standalone one. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found the article in a poor state sometime in 2020. So, I decided to clean it up and add some references at that time. Prior to its nomination for deletion, I added a couple more references. This is all I can say. ASTIG😎🙃 15:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Savchenko (footballer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There is a source/reference that in my opinion provides WP:SIGCOV for the above deleted article. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The newly discovered "SIGCOV" is nothing more than a routine stats page for the footballer. This appeal can only be seen as a tendentious continuation of the bludgeoning at the AfD, a standard practice for this editor. The appellant's contribution history paints a picture of an SPA who is not here to write an encyclopedia. Owen× ☎ 11:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  >The newly discovered "SIGCOV" is nothing more than a routine stats page for the footballer.

  I disagree with you. The above source imho provides not only stats. The sport's biography facts of the player are presented in the source.

  
  

  >This appeal can only be seen as a tendentious continuation of the bludgeoning at the AfD, a standard practice for this editor.

  Again, I disagree with you ... this appeal has nothing to do with a tendentious continuation of the bludgeoning at the AfD. It's not your job to accuse me of "standard practices" and so on.

  
  

  >The appellant's contribution history paints a picture of an SPA who is not here to write an encyclopedia.

  It's not your job to accuse me of things like "an SPA who is not here to write an encyclopedia". In my honest opinion you have no business here.

  
  

  Kind Regards Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll endorse this too. No error, of course, in closing the discussion - policy-based opinions were unanimously to delete - and while this single additional source might, barely, be considered significant, it's not independent, it's not of dissimilar character to what was in the article, and I don't think there was any reasonable chance for it to have affected the afd. —Cryptic 11:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There's no error by the closer. User:Web-wiki-warrior is the only contributor who has made keep assertions in these processes. Deletion review is an inappropriate place to bring new evidence. On the merits, WP:SPORTSPERSON, created for exactly this situation requires at least one source which directly details. Nothing approaching that here. BusterD (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved). Consensus was correctly interpreted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and speedy close — this is clearly and obviously a totally deficient application on the facts. The new "source" does not even meet the threshold of being discussed as potentially SIGCOV, it clearly fails. Further, this editor has not notified the deleting administrator of this discussion as required by the procedures. This request for review should be speedy closed as a combination of clearly endorsed and procedurally unsound, in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree; a speedy close is well justified here. Owen× ☎ 18:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and SALT - The appellant is offering a database entry as if it were significant coverage. DRV is not AFD round 3. (The AFD was AFD round 2.) The close was correct, which is the real issue at DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I, personally, would prefer to leave this sort of filing open for seven days in order to pile on the filer, to use an American football term. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree - no amount of 'pile on' is going to communicate a different message here. The applicant has significant IDHT-exhibited behaviours in previous situations (some of which are linked above), which renders a pile-on moot in terms of 'changing behaviours' or 'sending a clear message'. My view is we shouldn't waste any more time on this. Daniel (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pile-on rarely has much impact on an SPA, as they are not here to collaborate. But an AN/I case, with the goal of a topic ban, seems like a good choice, especially seeing the appellant's reaction above. An SPI case for the likely socks that materialized in this AfD would also be a good idea, and may eliminate the need for the other measures. Owen× ☎ 20:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need for a pile-on or an early closing, either one. —Cryptic 06:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Salt is not appropriate after a single violation, and we don't even have a single one. The fact is that a lot of the Wikipedia mandarins don't like sports articles, and a lot of the rank-and-file editors like them just fine. Nothing against policy is happening here on either side, just the ongoing slow erosion of editor participation by virtue of self-proclaimed beach purity guardians kicking down sandcastles that enthrall their creators. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Look at Web-wiki-warrior's AfDs. They are all unanimously against keeping except for www. Don't make general railing about mistreatment of sports fans without looking at THIS current evidence. BusterD (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean he hasn't been beaten down, given up, and gone away yet? It takes guts to be 1AM, although granted that not every stance taken is principled or sensible. Jclemens (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This was a badly argued AfD and I don't think we're necessarily being very fair here, as a quick search in Cyrillic, narrowing down to his specific football club, brought up lots of recent coverage. Even though most of it was about his signing, he's a young player and is likely to receive coverage in the future as well. Not saying this is should have been a keep, not saying there's not potential character concerns here, just noting this would may been a lot closer AfD if sources were presented: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] SportingFlyer T·C 03:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse as a correct reading of the consensus in the AFD but no salting as it is highly plausible that the subject will gain notability in the forseeable future. Shakhtar Donetsk is a major European club, and Mr. Savchenko is one of the few players on that team not to have a separate biography, although that can probably be somewhat justified by him not playing for them much, and being on loan to another club. The source provided in the DRV nomination here is insufficient, but as with SportingFlyer, I am open to the possibility that there are other sources in other languages that would be adequate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved) but I oppose salting as there is a reasonable chance that Savchenko will meet GNG if and when his career takes off properly. The sources above do address the subject but not in a huge amount of detail so I don't think that there is any mistake made either by the closer nor the participants at AfD. Sources like this are basic transfer announcements and are not usually considered as significant coverage. The close was correct in line with the consensus from the participants. No prejudice against the article being recreated should the coverage of Savchenko increase. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure was correct. Supplied article does, IMO, count toward WP:N, but it's not enough to overcome that quite recent discussion. But per the above salting would be wrong-headed. Hobit (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]