Draft:NASLite – Speedy deletion undone. Sandstein 10:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:NASLite (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Speedy deletion: Lack of diligence alleging WP:G12 which I allege is incorrect and WP:G11 very dubious also ... especially given previous discussion and outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASLite which this overrules. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Speedy actioner~~. Began~~ began talking to me as I was prepping the during the DRV raise and kind of suggested its taken here anyway. As most of us are aware this speedy action gets through shedloads of speedies very well and effectively but is to some extent reliant upon the diligence of one who raised the speedy. It is also to be noted this is in draft space.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] The log file identifies https://handwiki.org/wiki/NASLite as the G12 issue, and to quote that page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASLite was the original source" - so G12 seems to be obviously invalid. Wily D 13:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn- clearly the copying went the other way. Reyk _YO! 13:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] I've temporarily undeleted it so people can review whether G11 applies (or G12, I guess, though that appears already solved). Wily D 13:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] The talk page should also have been checked and that should have had a link to the AfD discussion which should also have been checked ... (only a saint would likely bother to check it but thats whats its there for). I'd be surprised if this didn't survive "unambiuous" G11 (though one person's feature is another advert) ... one might have a concern G11 might be being used too readily in the draftspace used by the newbies? Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Okay - what? Are you suggesting the talk page needs to be temporarily undeleted to facilitate this discussion? Wily D 14:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] It would have a tiny purpose of checking the Template:Old XfD multi was on the talk page but it would likely impact the result of this DRV. Quite frankly the likely problem is the admin forgetting to restore the talk page in the likely event of an overturn! Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] There's only been the one AfD, which is mentioned in the listing here already. Wily D 05:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Slightly missing my very miniscule point I was trying to make ... had the previous AfD not been mentioned on the talk page there would have been less reason to WP:TROUT peoples for missing it ... it should have been mentioned on the talk page page and contribution forensics may have indicated it (haven't checked) ... and am I that perfect not to have missed such a thing ... probably not. Per say [1] XFcloser places :Template:Old Afd multi on the talk page and (actually have now checked contriubtions) and XFCloser was used but contributions actions on the deleted talk page are not visible but the placing of the Old AfD/XfD multi template on it can reasonably be assumed. Thankyou. Only a we point only and I think I've now satisified myself at least talk page was likely not given due diligence but that's a minor point but perhaps a lesson learned as they say. And now talk page retrieval not required as point otherwise made albeit somewhat disproportionately in the end.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Djm-leighpark. I confirm that the notice of a previous AfD and a link to that discussion was present on the talk page when that was deleted. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] OVERTURN speedy deletion. The "source" page says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASLite was the original source which makes it clear that this was a backwards copy, and disposes of the G12. The deleting admin should have caught that. As to G11, the tone is a bit promotional, but a simple rewrite would have dealt with that, and a recent AfD which could have been closed as keep, and was closed as move to draft suggest that multiple editors did not see this as too promotional, and thus not an uncontroversial deletion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn I closed the AfD with a move to draft result only a few hours before these were speedy deleted. The G12 claim is a non-issue for the reasons already cited here. My G11 assessment is identical to that of DES - not ideal but also not so flagrant that any AfD participant saw fit to comment on it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, and Keep in Draft, as per User:Barkeep49 - The G12 was a good-faith error, but an error nonetheless because of the reverse copyvio. The G11 was clearly out of line, since there had already been an AFD. If this had been just a G11, I would say that the deleting admin had been grossly negligent. As it was, I will only say that the deleting admin was mistaken on the G12. Do not List or Relist or anything. The AFD was properly closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Thanks: To be clear as DRV nom I'm not challenging the AfD outcome just suggesting return to draft. Thanks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] No, it's not a good-faith error. A good-faith error is when, after due diligence, you end up making a reasonable, if incorrect, call. There's no way anybody who did due diligence on this would conclude G12 applied. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I am sorry that I tagged a 13-year old page for speedy deletion based on assumptions. I thought that this page was a copyright violation from another website, but it turned out that the other website actually copied the information from the Wikipedia page. Thus, it is the other website that I described when putting the page up for speedy deletion that committed copyright infringement, not the page itself. Also, if a page may be written like an advertisement (but I am not sure) - I will tag the article as such rather than requesting deletion. For now, I will take a temporary Wikibreak from requesting deletion. Thanks! Train of Knowledge (Talk\|Contribs) 19:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for reviewing your actions. To be clear the HandWiki was not a copyvio as it had good faith attributed content as coming from Wikipedia. I must admit I was slightly concerned in G11 is being used a tad too much in draft (not just you), and might be putting off a proportion of newbies where improved pathway tagging and educating might be better. But beyond the scope of this DRV.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment: When I will go back to requesting deletion (which will be when I am ready), I will not just look through draft articles. Instead, I will look through the creation log more generally and I will be more careful to make sure that articles are blatantly promotional before requesting G11. As I said before, any article that may be promotional (subtle promotion) will be tagged instead of deleted. Thanks! Train of Knowledge (Talk\|Contribs) 07:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment to User:Train of Knowledge - In my opinion, you made two minor good-faith errors. The first was small, and was in the G12 tagging, which really was a complicated situation, because it was a reverse copyvio. The second was medium-sized, and that was the G11. You shouldn't have tagged it for G11 if it had been recently through AFD. The larger error, which was still a good-faith error, in both cases was by the deleting administrator. So don't worry, but look at the history before tagging things, and know that you are the first line of protection of the encyclopedia from crud, with the admin being second. So don't worry. You didn't do anything wrong, just made a mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and keep in draft space - I don't think it would pass another AfD yet, but it's not promotional and the G12 was a clear flop which should have been easily identified by the deleting user. SportingFlyer T·C 07:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and trout. That WP:G12 doesn't apply should be blatantly obvious. The page cited as the copyvio source says, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASLite was the original source., although it should take anybody about 2 seconds to identify this as a likely wikipedia mirror from first glance. I don't think this is a great article, and probably wouldn't get past AfD in its current state, but it's far from a WP:G11 candidate. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Lightburst (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Pile on overturn. Neither criterion was valid; the "source" wasn't the creator of the content (as others have pointed out), and the draft would not need a fundamental rewrite to be non-promotional. Glades12 (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Draft:NASLite – Speedy deletion undone. Sandstein 10:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Speedy deletion: Lack of diligence alleging WP:G12 which I allege is incorrect and WP:G11 very dubious also ... especially given previous discussion and outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASLite which this overrules. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Speedy actioner~~. Began~~ began talking to me as I was prepping the during the DRV raise and kind of suggested its taken here anyway. As most of us are aware this speedy action gets through shedloads of speedies very well and effectively but is to some extent reliant upon the diligence of one who raised the speedy. It is also to be noted this is in draft space.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The log file identifies https://handwiki.org/wiki/NASLite as the G12 issue, and to quote that page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASLite was the original source" - so G12 seems to be obviously invalid. Wily D 13:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn- clearly the copying went the other way. Reyk _YO! 13:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've temporarily undeleted it so people can review whether G11 applies (or G12, I guess, though that appears already solved). Wily D 13:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page should also have been checked and that should have had a link to the AfD discussion which should also have been checked ... (only a saint would likely bother to check it but thats whats its there for). I'd be surprised if this didn't survive "unambiuous" G11 (though one person's feature is another advert) ... one might have a concern G11 might be being used too readily in the draftspace used by the newbies? Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - what? Are you suggesting the talk page needs to be temporarily undeleted to facilitate this discussion? Wily D 14:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would have a tiny purpose of checking the Template:Old XfD multi was on the talk page but it would likely impact the result of this DRV. Quite frankly the likely problem is the admin forgetting to restore the talk page in the likely event of an overturn! Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's only been the one AfD, which is mentioned in the listing here already. Wily D 05:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly missing my very miniscule point I was trying to make ... had the previous AfD not been mentioned on the talk page there would have been less reason to WP:TROUT peoples for missing it ... it should have been mentioned on the talk page page and contribution forensics may have indicated it (haven't checked) ... and am I that perfect not to have missed such a thing ... probably not. Per say [1] XFcloser places :Template:Old Afd multi on the talk page and (actually have now checked contriubtions) and XFCloser was used but contributions actions on the deleted talk page are not visible but the placing of the Old AfD/XfD multi template on it can reasonably be assumed. Thankyou. Only a we point only and I think I've now satisified myself at least talk page was likely not given due diligence but that's a minor point but perhaps a lesson learned as they say. And now talk page retrieval not required as point otherwise made albeit somewhat disproportionately in the end.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark. I confirm that the notice of a previous AfD and a link to that discussion was present on the talk page when that was deleted. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OVERTURN speedy deletion. The "source" page says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASLite was the original source which makes it clear that this was a backwards copy, and disposes of the G12. The deleting admin should have caught that. As to G11, the tone is a bit promotional, but a simple rewrite would have dealt with that, and a recent AfD which could have been closed as keep, and was closed as move to draft suggest that multiple editors did not see this as too promotional, and thus not an uncontroversial deletion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I closed the AfD with a move to draft result only a few hours before these were speedy deleted. The G12 claim is a non-issue for the reasons already cited here. My G11 assessment is identical to that of DES - not ideal but also not so flagrant that any AfD participant saw fit to comment on it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, and Keep in Draft, as per User:Barkeep49 - The G12 was a good-faith error, but an error nonetheless because of the reverse copyvio. The G11 was clearly out of line, since there had already been an AFD. If this had been just a G11, I would say that the deleting admin had been grossly negligent. As it was, I will only say that the deleting admin was mistaken on the G12. Do not List or Relist or anything. The AFD was properly closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: To be clear as DRV nom I'm not challenging the AfD outcome just suggesting return to draft. Thanks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a good-faith error. A good-faith error is when, after due diligence, you end up making a reasonable, if incorrect, call. There's no way anybody who did due diligence on this would conclude G12 applied. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am sorry that I tagged a 13-year old page for speedy deletion based on assumptions. I thought that this page was a copyright violation from another website, but it turned out that the other website actually copied the information from the Wikipedia page. Thus, it is the other website that I described when putting the page up for speedy deletion that committed copyright infringement, not the page itself. Also, if a page may be written like an advertisement (but I am not sure) - I will tag the article as such rather than requesting deletion. For now, I will take a temporary Wikibreak from requesting deletion. Thanks! Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 19:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing your actions. To be clear the HandWiki was not a copyvio as it had good faith attributed content as coming from Wikipedia. I must admit I was slightly concerned in G11 is being used a tad too much in draft (not just you), and might be putting off a proportion of newbies where improved pathway tagging and educating might be better. But beyond the scope of this DRV.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I will go back to requesting deletion (which will be when I am ready), I will not just look through draft articles. Instead, I will look through the creation log more generally and I will be more careful to make sure that articles are blatantly promotional before requesting G11. As I said before, any article that may be promotional (subtle promotion) will be tagged instead of deleted. Thanks! Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 07:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:Train of Knowledge - In my opinion, you made two minor good-faith errors. The first was small, and was in the G12 tagging, which really was a complicated situation, because it was a reverse copyvio. The second was medium-sized, and that was the G11. You shouldn't have tagged it for G11 if it had been recently through AFD. The larger error, which was still a good-faith error, in both cases was by the deleting administrator. So don't worry, but look at the history before tagging things, and know that you are the first line of protection of the encyclopedia from crud, with the admin being second. So don't worry. You didn't do anything wrong, just made a mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and keep in draft space - I don't think it would pass another AfD yet, but it's not promotional and the G12 was a clear flop which should have been easily identified by the deleting user. SportingFlyer T·C 07:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and trout. That WP:G12 doesn't apply should be blatantly obvious. The page cited as the copyvio source says, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASLite was the original source., although it should take anybody about 2 seconds to identify this as a likely wikipedia mirror from first glance. I don't think this is a great article, and probably wouldn't get past AfD in its current state, but it's far from a WP:G11 candidate. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Lightburst (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on overturn. Neither criterion was valid; the "source" wasn't the creator of the content (as others have pointed out), and the draft would not need a fundamental rewrite to be non-promotional. Glades12 (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Forgotten Realms deities – No Consensus. AfD endorsed by default. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of Forgotten Realms deities (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The sourcing for Deities in the Forgotten Realms satisfies WP:LISTN and the closer may have too narrowly construed the text of this guideline. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] I'm involved as I !voted, but did you discuss this with the AfD closer before coming here? I was curious what they had to say and can't find the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 10:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Hi, I've only recently begun participating in AfD discussion and this is the first one that I am nominating for review. I posted the suggested template notification to the closer's talk page. Insofar as the closer did not appear to address WP:LISTN in the close I posted here. Typically, how often does a closer reverse a decision based on a talk page discussion? And if so, how often is the article renominated? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] @AugusteBlanqui: Upon closer inspection, it's not a requirement (I thought it was? Question for elsewhere: should this be a policy discussion to make it mandatory?), but it's highly recommended, as it gives the closer a chance to review their close and potentially explain themselves further. Reversal's unlikely if the closer considers the close was proper, but the goal is to avoid a needless DRV. Renomination depends on how the article is ultimately closed and the essay WP:RENOM and is separate from the DRV process. Hope that helps, happy to answer any other procedural questions you might have. SportingFlyer T·C 11:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] The longstanding consensus is that it should not be compulsory to approach the closer before listing a DRV. Firstly because some editors, and particularly those who're unfamiliar with Wikipedia, find sysops intimidating and that's a disincentive to get decisions reviewed or explained; and secondly because as a matter of principle, the person who made the call shouldn't be the gatekeeper for a discussion about whether they made the right call.—S Marshall T/C 12:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] endorse- Should have been closed as delete even before the relist because there were literally no arguments made for keeping. The usual "keepormerge" without explanation, "it's got blue links", and "It's valid" are not arguments and were quite rightly given no weight. Reyk _YO! 11:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] question Is it incumbent on the closer to assess the original nomination or just the arguments for keep? If only the latter, doesn't nominating articles for deletion potentially create a lot of work for "keep" editors particularly if the original nomination was specious? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] That's something you should have asked the closing administrator before bringing it here. But generally yes, the closing admin should take into account all the opinions in the discussion. In this case it was clear that the delete !voters made better arguments. Reyk _YO! 11:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Sigh. An AfD where the "keep" side failed to express their only strong argument. This was a navigational list that clearly satisfies WP:CLN. In other words, because you can have Category:Forgotten Realms deities, per policy you can have a list that duplicates it. But this wasn't said. The close was in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus was wrong on policy; therefore the correct DRV outcome is relist as a defective discussion.—S Marshall T/C 12:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Where in there does it say a category necessitates a list? It seems to simply to defend the idea that you shouldn't delete a list on the argument it has a category and vice versa. I don't think anyone put forth that argument, and consensus can otherwise say a list is unneeded per that page. The category is also on its way out, having been gutted to I believe literally a tenth of its former size. It will be gone shortly. TTN (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] It will? Is there some sort of campaign or crusade going on?—S Marshall T/C 12:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] For several months across numerous fictional universes, among several editors, clearly yes. BOZ (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] There are so many D&D articles currently up for deletion that it can be difficult for editors to find the time to make detailed keep arguments, or to improve the existing article. For example, a legitimate article could be fancruft-contamninated. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Or maybe the majority of the articles simply aren't notable. It's not impossible for a potential notable article to be overlooked, but I'd doubt that's the case. Maybe if a certain group of people actually took heed to the concerns from 2014 and made any attempt to actually fix their space... TTN (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] The above editors are contending that you're creating so many AfDs that you're overwhelming our normal deletion processes. I've just checked a random sample of the recent AfD logs and I feel there does appear to be a high proportion of deletion discussions about role-playing games, which to me implies that what we actually need is an RfC to create clear principles governing the whole topic area. Personally my feeling is that beating up the D&D nerds is a mistake. Fictional topic fandom is a major source of new editors for the project, and I think that the shrinking number of Wikipedians is a bit of a concern. In any case they aren't doing any harm. Perhaps this deletionist zeal might be better aimed at poorly-sourced BLPs?—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] I personally stopped at the request of someone wanting to clean up the space, but I am fairly doubtful on the completion of that campaign regardless. But I'll still participate in those started by others. The largest problem in them being against these is that they've had well over a decade to attend to these, and the majority of these are just outright not notable. Complaining that one or two may be overlooked is pointless when they could just be brought back after sources are provided. TTN (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] I've temporarily undeleted the article to facilitate this discussion. Wily D 12:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I can neither see in the discussion, nor discover on my own, why this is supposed to pass WP:LISTN. Is that elucidated anywhere? Wily D 12:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] It's a navigational list. It passes NOTDUP rather than LISTN.—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I'm giving that argument some thought. But the nominate here asserted it passed WP:LISTN, which I don't see at all, which is why I'm asking. Wily D 12:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, now that the article has been tempundeleted and I can see what it was actually like, I have to say that the argument that the list is navigational is... not convincing. For a navigational list there sure is a lot of unsourced plot summary of redlinked or nonlinked entries. At best this is a crufty fandump cunningly disguised to look navigational. Reyk _YO! 12:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] So we'd delete this list and then create a navigational one in this space?—S Marshall T/C 17:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] I don't see the point of making a navigational list in its place, actually. A purely navigational list would be useless but also pretty harmless. But keeping the edit history of this one in place would be a bad idea since in my experience the D&D fans sometimes like to sneak back when nobody's watching to restore, for instance, crufty articles that have been converted to redirects. Reyk _YO! 18:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Relist per the suggestion of S Marshall. I think there may be some room to reconsider for a Keep, but perhaps more importantly I suggested a smerge to the main parent article and at least two editors said that was worth exploring, but the closer did mention taking that into account in their close, so that is another possible outcome. BOZ (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - I don't think S Marshall's argument applies here. If this had been a straight delete on the basis of the category existing, that would be a pertinent argument, but the very page he links to says that "At the same time, there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia." Otherwise, there was no strong evidence of passing list notability or establishing the article as a proper fork. TTN (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn or Relist. The closure seems a bit like a supervote and does not tally with the opinions expressed in the discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] What policy/guideline based opinions were ignored? Your contribution is literally "it's important." TTN (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn A list article is valid if it aids in navigation, that one of the purposes a list article can have. Claiming my argument, that it had a lot of blue links to other articles, is invalid because some of those links are now redirects are at AFD, is wrong since the closer didn't click on all the blue links, otherwise they would've found that not all of them are up for deletion, and even those who are might not be deleted. The list shouldn't be nominated unless all the things linked to have already been deleted. I have gone through Category:Forgotten Realms deities and erased all the categories on the pages that were just redirects. This helps identify which of the blue links in the article link to actual articles and not redirects. Note that most of those left are not being nominated for deletion. It is a supervote to ignore all those who gave valid reasons for keeping it. Dream Focus 13:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Update: Some of those in the list article that are valid blue links are not listed in this one category but instead Category:Dungeons & Dragons deities. If there is a bot that can just take every link on that list and then say which ones are redirects and which ones are not, that'd be helpful. At any rate, there are enough valid links easily verified in the first category to justify the list. Dream Focus 13:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment/analysis as AfD closer As for the bluelink !keep vote, of the 282 bullet-point deities, 138 (49%) were linked, and of these only 30 (10% of total) were actual articles (i.e. not redirects) and not up for AfD at the same time. At the rate that Forgotten Realms currently experiences AfDs, I expect(ed) hardly any stand-alone article to survive. On my perusal of the List before deletion, all references either only proved the existence of individual fictional deities or in-universe info about them (WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:PRIMARY WP:PLOT, as noted by delete !voters), which in my eyes means WP:NOTABILITY is not satisfied. In my closing notes, I solely focused on why I therefore discounted the keep !votes, leaving the delete recommendations speak for themselves. I have no vested interest in this AfD or the list itself, so go ahead and do what you need to do with this AfD/List. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] comment On the one hand WP:CLN validates a list with blue links/categories; on the other hand WP:LISTN potentially validates a list without blue links (disputes will come down sources) so it seems like a list that addresses both (one perhaps more than the other) is a useful contribution to Wikipedia. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] The only thing CLN does is says that lists/categories can coexist, and that it's seen as a beneficial on a general basis. It's not an argument that a page should/needs to exist because a category exists. As per the quote I posted above, consensus can say that a list is unnecessary. Though if we want to do a bare-bones, blue link only list that can nominated again if/when the category is deleted, I'd be fine with that as a compromise. TTN (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] WP:CLN seems like a "no brainer" for keeping a list article and I suppose the argument will come down to how many articles justify a category. Regarding WP:LISTN, when I review WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and consider the ubiquity of D&D content (deities, monsters, settings, character classes, and more) in popular culture then I still consider there is a valid argument to be made for this (and similar list articles) whether or not a category exists.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Weak Endorse and Yuck. I would have !voted to Keep the list, but I didn't take part in the discussion. I would have closed the discussion as No Consensus, but I am not an administrator. However, the appellant appears to be re-litigating, not arguing any error by the closer, and I don't see an argument that Delete is an obvious error. So Weak Endorse. I don't know what the basis of this appeal is. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Most of this discussion seems to be re-litigation of the AfD, with four of the seven distinct !voters so far having participated in the discussion. I'm not explicitly voting as I also participated and I agree with the close, but I don't see why delete would have been an invalid conclusion here. SportingFlyer T·C 03:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. I voted keep in the AFD discussion on this article. I wasn't aware of the WP:CLN policy per User:S Marshall above), or I would have referenced it directly, but I believe I tried to put forward the spirit of that policy by the argument I supplied in the discussion. I went back and had another look at the article pre-deletion, and for the most part it is simply a list of, exactly as it says, the various fictional deities in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, and I would agree that the vast majority, if not all of them, are not independently notable. However, they are all perfectly valid search terms which would lead an interested user to the Forgotten Realms campaign setting. I would consider that to be inherently notable; it's huge, it's been written about and played in for somewhere close on 30 years, and (I checked) it contains significant coverage in secondary, independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Could this list be reproduced there? Yes, presumably - but it would unnecessarily clutter the article. Could you redirect the individual names to the Forgotten Realms article? Yes - but you'd lose the context, unless you incorporated the list again. As such, my argument is that this is a subelement of the Forgotten Realms setting which is large enough in and of itself to justify a separate list article, per WP:LISTPURP. If there's a problem with the content of that article, fine - edit it. I'm not necessarily convinced that any individual entry in the list needs more than a single line anyway - but I am convinced that it should not be summarily deleted. (Also - thanks to User:AugusteBlanqui for bringing this to deletion review.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn or Relist. The closure is a supervote. The assessment of the AfD participants !votes was not correct. Lightburst (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Additional Comment: I concur with and support User:S Marshall's suggestion of an RFC on the topic of role-playing games, and suggest it be extended to fiction in general. The multiple failures of this project to produce usable guidelines for writing articles about fiction are at the core of the arguments to delete (and save) articles like this one.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia's vast range of guidelines and essays about notability as it applies to fictional topics is akin to scripture, in that somewhere in the labyrinthine mess of rules, you can find support for almost any position. This has come about because editors simply can't agree about how notability applies to fictional topics. It means that any RfC on fictional topics in general will inevitably lead to a "no consensus" outcome. But it might be possible to get consensus on how best to deal with role-playing games. With RfCs, the more specific the topic the better the outcome.—S Marshall T/C 12:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse – There was nothing wrong with this close. NOTAVOTE, but just on the numbers, there were 6 delete !votes, 4 keep !votes, one "keep or merge", and one "selective merge"–that's almost 2:1 against keeping (7:4). Numerically, the deletes have it, before considering the discounting of any !votes. If you consider the arguments on either side equally-strong, then there is consensus to delete. I see no reason to consider keep arguments to be so strong that they should outweigh the delete arguments. So, the closer accurately judged consensus to delete here. If an RfC were held, maybe the list could be recreated in a form that complies with the RfC and CLN. – Levivich 20:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] You lose me on this one. Accepting your numbers, I'd say there were 6 !votes that favored deletion and 6 that did not. Merge !votes are most certainly not a vote for deletion--if data gets merged the source article can't be deleted because of attribution rules. That's 50/50. So the delete arguments need to be strong enough to overcome the numeric lack of consensus. Hobit (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] overturn to NC There wasn't numeric consensus (50/50 to not delete) and I don't think the policy-based arguments were strong enough to overcome that lack of consensus. Hobit (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The closing admin made the right call, I don't see how this satisfies LISTN, primary sources only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| reply here} 05:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Note these recently closed AfDs – sgeureka ^t•c 08:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC) :[reply] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons halfling deities was closed as merge by User:Barkeep49 on 10 December 2019 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons gnome deities was closed as delete by User:Sandstein on 10 December 2019 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragonlance deities was closed as delete by User:Sandstein on 10 December 2019 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Greyhawk deities was closed as no consensus by User: Ritchie333 on 10 December 2019 Endorse. From what I can see, the closer correctly applied policy: notability also applies to lists per WP:LISTN, and the "keep" opinions did not address this problem. I came to the same conclusion in the two similar AfDs mentioned above which I closed. Sandstein 10:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of Forgotten Realms deities – No Consensus. AfD endorsed by default. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The sourcing for Deities in the Forgotten Realms satisfies WP:LISTN and the closer may have too narrowly construed the text of this guideline. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved as I !voted, but did you discuss this with the AfD closer before coming here? I was curious what they had to say and can't find the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 10:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've only recently begun participating in AfD discussion and this is the first one that I am nominating for review. I posted the suggested template notification to the closer's talk page. Insofar as the closer did not appear to address WP:LISTN in the close I posted here. Typically, how often does a closer reverse a decision based on a talk page discussion? And if so, how often is the article renominated? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AugusteBlanqui: Upon closer inspection, it's not a requirement (I thought it was? Question for elsewhere: should this be a policy discussion to make it mandatory?), but it's highly recommended, as it gives the closer a chance to review their close and potentially explain themselves further. Reversal's unlikely if the closer considers the close was proper, but the goal is to avoid a needless DRV. Renomination depends on how the article is ultimately closed and the essay WP:RENOM and is separate from the DRV process. Hope that helps, happy to answer any other procedural questions you might have. SportingFlyer T·C 11:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The longstanding consensus is that it should not be compulsory to approach the closer before listing a DRV. Firstly because some editors, and particularly those who're unfamiliar with Wikipedia, find sysops intimidating and that's a disincentive to get decisions reviewed or explained; and secondly because as a matter of principle, the person who made the call shouldn't be the gatekeeper for a discussion about whether they made the right call.—S Marshall T/C 12:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

endorse- Should have been closed as delete even before the relist because there were literally no arguments made for keeping. The usual "keepormerge" without explanation, "it's got blue links", and "It's valid" are not arguments and were quite rightly given no weight. Reyk _YO! 11:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

question Is it incumbent on the closer to assess the original nomination or just the arguments for keep? If only the latter, doesn't nominating articles for deletion potentially create a lot of work for "keep" editors particularly if the original nomination was specious? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's something you should have asked the closing administrator before bringing it here. But generally yes, the closing admin should take into account all the opinions in the discussion. In this case it was clear that the delete !voters made better arguments. Reyk _YO! 11:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. An AfD where the "keep" side failed to express their only strong argument. This was a navigational list that clearly satisfies WP:CLN. In other words, because you can have Category:Forgotten Realms deities, per policy you can have a list that duplicates it. But this wasn't said. The close was in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus was wrong on policy; therefore the correct DRV outcome is relist as a defective discussion.—S Marshall T/C 12:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where in there does it say a category necessitates a list? It seems to simply to defend the idea that you shouldn't delete a list on the argument it has a category and vice versa. I don't think anyone put forth that argument, and consensus can otherwise say a list is unneeded per that page. The category is also on its way out, having been gutted to I believe literally a tenth of its former size. It will be gone shortly. TTN (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It will? Is there some sort of campaign or crusade going on?—S Marshall T/C 12:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For several months across numerous fictional universes, among several editors, clearly yes. BOZ (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many D&D articles currently up for deletion that it can be difficult for editors to find the time to make detailed keep arguments, or to improve the existing article. For example, a legitimate article could be fancruft-contamninated. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe the majority of the articles simply aren't notable. It's not impossible for a potential notable article to be overlooked, but I'd doubt that's the case. Maybe if a certain group of people actually took heed to the concerns from 2014 and made any attempt to actually fix their space... TTN (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above editors are contending that you're creating so many AfDs that you're overwhelming our normal deletion processes. I've just checked a random sample of the recent AfD logs and I feel there does appear to be a high proportion of deletion discussions about role-playing games, which to me implies that what we actually need is an RfC to create clear principles governing the whole topic area. Personally my feeling is that beating up the D&D nerds is a mistake. Fictional topic fandom is a major source of new editors for the project, and I think that the shrinking number of Wikipedians is a bit of a concern. In any case they aren't doing any harm. Perhaps this deletionist zeal might be better aimed at poorly-sourced BLPs?—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I personally stopped at the request of someone wanting to clean up the space, but I am fairly doubtful on the completion of that campaign regardless. But I'll still participate in those started by others. The largest problem in them being against these is that they've had well over a decade to attend to these, and the majority of these are just outright not notable. Complaining that one or two may be overlooked is pointless when they could just be brought back after sources are provided. TTN (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've temporarily undeleted the article to facilitate this discussion. Wily D 12:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can neither see in the discussion, nor discover on my own, why this is supposed to pass WP:LISTN. Is that elucidated anywhere? Wily D 12:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a navigational list. It passes NOTDUP rather than LISTN.—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm giving that argument some thought. But the nominate here asserted it passed WP:LISTN, which I don't see at all, which is why I'm asking. Wily D 12:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now that the article has been tempundeleted and I can see what it was actually like, I have to say that the argument that the list is navigational is... not convincing. For a navigational list there sure is a lot of unsourced plot summary of redlinked or nonlinked entries. At best this is a crufty fandump cunningly disguised to look navigational. Reyk _YO! 12:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So we'd delete this list and then create a navigational one in this space?—S Marshall T/C 17:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of making a navigational list in its place, actually. A purely navigational list would be useless but also pretty harmless. But keeping the edit history of this one in place would be a bad idea since in my experience the D&D fans sometimes like to sneak back when nobody's watching to restore, for instance, crufty articles that have been converted to redirects. Reyk _YO! 18:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relist per the suggestion of S Marshall. I think there may be some room to reconsider for a Keep, but perhaps more importantly I suggested a smerge to the main parent article and at least two editors said that was worth exploring, but the closer did mention taking that into account in their close, so that is another possible outcome. BOZ (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I don't think S Marshall's argument applies here. If this had been a straight delete on the basis of the category existing, that would be a pertinent argument, but the very page he links to says that "At the same time, there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia." Otherwise, there was no strong evidence of passing list notability or establishing the article as a proper fork. TTN (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or Relist. The closure seems a bit like a supervote and does not tally with the opinions expressed in the discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What policy/guideline based opinions were ignored? Your contribution is literally "it's important." TTN (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn A list article is valid if it aids in navigation, that one of the purposes a list article can have. Claiming my argument, that it had a lot of blue links to other articles, is invalid because some of those links are now redirects are at AFD, is wrong since the closer didn't click on all the blue links, otherwise they would've found that not all of them are up for deletion, and even those who are might not be deleted. The list shouldn't be nominated unless all the things linked to have already been deleted. I have gone through Category:Forgotten Realms deities and erased all the categories on the pages that were just redirects. This helps identify which of the blue links in the article link to actual articles and not redirects. Note that most of those left are not being nominated for deletion. It is a supervote to ignore all those who gave valid reasons for keeping it. Dream Focus 13:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Some of those in the list article that are valid blue links are not listed in this one category but instead Category:Dungeons & Dragons deities. If there is a bot that can just take every link on that list and then say which ones are redirects and which ones are not, that'd be helpful. At any rate, there are enough valid links easily verified in the first category to justify the list. Dream Focus 13:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/analysis as AfD closer As for the bluelink !keep vote, of the 282 bullet-point deities, 138 (49%) were linked, and of these only 30 (10% of total) were actual articles (i.e. not redirects) and not up for AfD at the same time. At the rate that Forgotten Realms currently experiences AfDs, I expect(ed) hardly any stand-alone article to survive. On my perusal of the List before deletion, all references either only proved the existence of individual fictional deities or in-universe info about them (WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:PRIMARY WP:PLOT, as noted by delete !voters), which in my eyes means WP:NOTABILITY is not satisfied. In my closing notes, I solely focused on why I therefore discounted the keep !votes, leaving the delete recommendations speak for themselves. I have no vested interest in this AfD or the list itself, so go ahead and do what you need to do with this AfD/List. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment On the one hand WP:CLN validates a list with blue links/categories; on the other hand WP:LISTN potentially validates a list without blue links (disputes will come down sources) so it seems like a list that addresses both (one perhaps more than the other) is a useful contribution to Wikipedia. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing CLN does is says that lists/categories can coexist, and that it's seen as a beneficial on a general basis. It's not an argument that a page should/needs to exist because a category exists. As per the quote I posted above, consensus can say that a list is unnecessary. Though if we want to do a bare-bones, blue link only list that can nominated again if/when the category is deleted, I'd be fine with that as a compromise. TTN (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN seems like a "no brainer" for keeping a list article and I suppose the argument will come down to how many articles justify a category. Regarding WP:LISTN, when I review WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and consider the ubiquity of D&D content (deities, monsters, settings, character classes, and more) in popular culture then I still consider there is a valid argument to be made for this (and similar list articles) whether or not a category exists.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Endorse and Yuck. I would have !voted to Keep the list, but I didn't take part in the discussion. I would have closed the discussion as No Consensus, but I am not an administrator. However, the appellant appears to be re-litigating, not arguing any error by the closer, and I don't see an argument that Delete is an obvious error. So Weak Endorse. I don't know what the basis of this appeal is. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this discussion seems to be re-litigation of the AfD, with four of the seven distinct !voters so far having participated in the discussion. I'm not explicitly voting as I also participated and I agree with the close, but I don't see why delete would have been an invalid conclusion here. SportingFlyer T·C 03:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I voted keep in the AFD discussion on this article. I wasn't aware of the WP:CLN policy per User:S Marshall above), or I would have referenced it directly, but I believe I tried to put forward the spirit of that policy by the argument I supplied in the discussion. I went back and had another look at the article pre-deletion, and for the most part it is simply a list of, exactly as it says, the various fictional deities in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, and I would agree that the vast majority, if not all of them, are not independently notable. However, they are all perfectly valid search terms which would lead an interested user to the Forgotten Realms campaign setting. I would consider that to be inherently notable; it's huge, it's been written about and played in for somewhere close on 30 years, and (I checked) it contains significant coverage in secondary, independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Could this list be reproduced there? Yes, presumably - but it would unnecessarily clutter the article. Could you redirect the individual names to the Forgotten Realms article? Yes - but you'd lose the context, unless you incorporated the list again. As such, my argument is that this is a subelement of the Forgotten Realms setting which is large enough in and of itself to justify a separate list article, per WP:LISTPURP. If there's a problem with the content of that article, fine - edit it. I'm not necessarily convinced that any individual entry in the list needs more than a single line anyway - but I am convinced that it should not be summarily deleted. (Also - thanks to User:AugusteBlanqui for bringing this to deletion review.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or Relist. The closure is a supervote. The assessment of the AfD participants !votes was not correct. Lightburst (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: I concur with and support User:S Marshall's suggestion of an RFC on the topic of role-playing games, and suggest it be extended to fiction in general. The multiple failures of this project to produce usable guidelines for writing articles about fiction are at the core of the arguments to delete (and save) articles like this one.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's vast range of guidelines and essays about notability as it applies to fictional topics is akin to scripture, in that somewhere in the labyrinthine mess of rules, you can find support for almost any position. This has come about because editors simply can't agree about how notability applies to fictional topics. It means that any RfC on fictional topics in general will inevitably lead to a "no consensus" outcome. But it might be possible to get consensus on how best to deal with role-playing games. With RfCs, the more specific the topic the better the outcome.—S Marshall T/C 12:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse – There was nothing wrong with this close. NOTAVOTE, but just on the numbers, there were 6 delete !votes, 4 keep !votes, one "keep or merge", and one "selective merge"–that's almost 2:1 against keeping (7:4). Numerically, the deletes have it, before considering the discounting of any !votes. If you consider the arguments on either side equally-strong, then there is consensus to delete. I see no reason to consider keep arguments to be so strong that they should outweigh the delete arguments. So, the closer accurately judged consensus to delete here. If an RfC were held, maybe the list could be recreated in a form that complies with the RfC and CLN. – Levivich 20:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You lose me on this one. Accepting your numbers, I'd say there were 6 !votes that favored deletion and 6 that did not. Merge !votes are most certainly not a vote for deletion--if data gets merged the source article can't be deleted because of attribution rules. That's 50/50. So the delete arguments need to be strong enough to overcome the numeric lack of consensus. Hobit (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to NC There wasn't numeric consensus (50/50 to not delete) and I don't think the policy-based arguments were strong enough to overcome that lack of consensus. Hobit (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closing admin made the right call, I don't see how this satisfies LISTN, primary sources only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note these recently closed AfDs – sgeureka ^t•c 08:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC) :[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons halfling deities was closed as merge by User:Barkeep49 on 10 December 2019
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons gnome deities was closed as delete by User:Sandstein on 10 December 2019
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragonlance deities was closed as delete by User:Sandstein on 10 December 2019
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Greyhawk deities was closed as no consensus by User: Ritchie333 on 10 December 2019
Endorse. From what I can see, the closer correctly applied policy: notability also applies to lists per WP:LISTN, and the "keep" opinions did not address this problem. I came to the same conclusion in the two similar AfDs mentioned above which I closed. Sandstein 10:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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