Farah_Damji – WP:SNOW Endorse. Even among the couple of participants who thought this was a WP:BADNAC, there's unanimous agreement the result was accurate. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Farah_Damji (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I think the consensus decision was made based on the voting not on the real facts, also there were only few votes in AFD discussion, should take more time, please reconsider the 'deletion review' or relist into AFD discussion. The main reason for 'deletion review' or relist is, (and, would like to add some more notes here on AFD) like, subject isn't notable now If you Google the subject, you'll see only some social profiles, her own links etc. and there are some old news links which are even too old and now the subject is low-profile individual. Moreover, if you closely look at the page, it look like some kind of news site page cause there's nothing informational on page and Wikipedia is encyclopedia. There's no reason to keep this Wikipedia page. So request you kindly re-consider the decision to 'Delete' or kindly re-list page in AFD.2409:4055:505:1D69:1520:73BA:9B54:9DD8 (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)juppalsingh[reply] Endorse - the two "keep" !votes provided clear evidence in the form of links, that the subject met WP:SIGCOV and that the assertion that she isn't notable, according to Wikipedia's WP:GNG, is untrue. The two delete comments simply state that the topic is "not notable" without providing any evidence or policy-based notability analysis. The "keep" !votes further noted that the issue of article quality (which was raised in the nomination statement) would be better addressed through talk page discussion, and certainly there was no consensus that a WP:TNT was required for this page. All in all I think the evidence was plentiful that this should be kept, and there was no need for it to be relisted - a further week would not have led to a different outcome. — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse very clear result, the Keep comments provided sources which rebutted the nomination and which nobody tried to reply to. Notability is not temporary, it's entirely possible for someone to be notable on the basis of old sources, and the sources listed were published over a long time period. Hut 8.5 19:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close per the above and Hut 8.5. Though this AfD had few participants and I'm not speaking to the soundness of the "keep" arguments, there was no consensus to delete here (there was no support even, other than from the nominator). I note, though, that consensus can change and there may be consensus at any time in the future to to delete this article. The result of this AfD does not necessarily establish WP:Notability, but deletion review isn't the place for this as it was an accurate close at the given time. --Doug Mehus T·C 19:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Weak Endorse - Right close, wrong closer. It would have been better to Relist, but a Keep is a valid result, and the closer should learn that if two of their non-administrative closes are at DRV in a week, maybe they should learn something about contentious non-administrative closes. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment in re: to Robert McClenon, this is the close I felt was valid in the ANI discussion involving Nnadigoodluck. I actually contemplated making my bolded !vote a "weak endorse," but felt it was an accurate close even if other options or a different closer might've been preferred. So, it's reassuring to know I wasn't wrong to have contemplated a "weak endorse" here. Doug Mehus T·C 01:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse correct result and exactly the type of close a non-admin should be able to close without having to worry about being DRV'd. SportingFlyer T·C 07:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse and preferable to a relist although I would also have endorsed that. The close predated the ANI but that discussion has not put me off from supporting the close here. Thincat (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Clear consensus, no BADNAC flags. WP:RENOM might be the answer. It is a near-orphan, and feels like a BLP problematic page, but, as said in the AfD, there is sustained reliable source coverage. Also, the subject has published about herself, so she is not a private person, as per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Consensus was clear. Dream Focus 01:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Farah_Damji – WP:SNOW Endorse. Even among the couple of participants who thought this was a WP:BADNAC, there's unanimous agreement the result was accurate. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think the consensus decision was made based on the voting not on the real facts, also there were only few votes in AFD discussion, should take more time, please reconsider the 'deletion review' or relist into AFD discussion. The main reason for 'deletion review' or relist is, (and, would like to add some more notes here on AFD) like, subject isn't notable now If you Google the subject, you'll see only some social profiles, her own links etc. and there are some old news links which are even too old and now the subject is low-profile individual. Moreover, if you closely look at the page, it look like some kind of news site page cause there's nothing informational on page and Wikipedia is encyclopedia. There's no reason to keep this Wikipedia page. So request you kindly re-consider the decision to 'Delete' or kindly re-list page in AFD.2409:4055:505:1D69:1520:73BA:9B54:9DD8 (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)juppalsingh[reply]

Endorse - the two "keep" !votes provided clear evidence in the form of links, that the subject met WP:SIGCOV and that the assertion that she isn't notable, according to Wikipedia's WP:GNG, is untrue. The two delete comments simply state that the topic is "not notable" without providing any evidence or policy-based notability analysis. The "keep" !votes further noted that the issue of article quality (which was raised in the nomination statement) would be better addressed through talk page discussion, and certainly there was no consensus that a WP:TNT was required for this page. All in all I think the evidence was plentiful that this should be kept, and there was no need for it to be relisted - a further week would not have led to a different outcome. — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse very clear result, the Keep comments provided sources which rebutted the nomination and which nobody tried to reply to. Notability is not temporary, it's entirely possible for someone to be notable on the basis of old sources, and the sources listed were published over a long time period. Hut 8.5 19:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close per the above and Hut 8.5. Though this AfD had few participants and I'm not speaking to the soundness of the "keep" arguments, there was no consensus to delete here (there was no support even, other than from the nominator). I note, though, that consensus can change and there may be consensus at any time in the future to to delete this article. The result of this AfD does not necessarily establish WP:Notability, but deletion review isn't the place for this as it was an accurate close at the given time. --Doug Mehus T·C 19:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse - Right close, wrong closer. It would have been better to Relist, but a Keep is a valid result, and the closer should learn that if two of their non-administrative closes are at DRV in a week, maybe they should learn something about contentious non-administrative closes. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in re: to Robert McClenon, this is the close I felt was valid in the ANI discussion involving Nnadigoodluck. I actually contemplated making my bolded !vote a "weak endorse," but felt it was an accurate close even if other options or a different closer might've been preferred. So, it's reassuring to know I wasn't wrong to have contemplated a "weak endorse" here. Doug Mehus T·C 01:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse correct result and exactly the type of close a non-admin should be able to close without having to worry about being DRV'd. SportingFlyer T·C 07:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and preferable to a relist although I would also have endorsed that. The close predated the ANI but that discussion has not put me off from supporting the close here. Thincat (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Clear consensus, no BADNAC flags. WP:RENOM might be the answer. It is a near-orphan, and feels like a BLP problematic page, but, as said in the AfD, there is sustained reliable source coverage. Also, the subject has published about herself, so she is not a private person, as per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Consensus was clear. Dream Focus 01:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Percy (politician) – Overturned and relisted. The applicability of SK4 is not ambiguous, and it clearly does not cover this case or the others mentioned, where "substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered". I'm sure it was done in good faith, but there is no way in policy to justify closing those discussions without assessing the merits of the legitimate comments, so with a friendly WP:TROUT to Miraclepine I am closing this now and reopening the discussions. — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
John Percy (politician) (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Another case of WP:BADNAC, as WP:SK Criteria 4 isn't applicable. The nominator was blocked, but "if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed". Which is what happened in the AfD. The nominator's opinion should be discounted, but closing AfD was not appropriate. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. As the closer, I'd like to note that the policy says "subsequent editors", but there was only one other person voted in the AFD. ミラ P 00:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] It's used in general, so it doesn't discount cases with 1 editor only. Besides, that is not what you have practiced at another closure Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victor_Lau_(2nd_nomination), which should be speedy reverted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Ask the sock-blocking admin User:Bbb23 to look at the other account !voting "delete", NotButtigieg (talk · contribs). I think it looks suspicious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] It was a weak AfD nomination, as is the delete !vote, as there is an active and very viable merge proposal. I don't think "delete" is a reasonable outcome, it would be at worst a "Redirect". It should not be at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] There are other similar cases. eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Lau (2nd nomination). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] I already boldly reverted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Burke (Canadian politician), I probably would have brought it here as well. The active merge proposal was added by Miraclepine after they closed the AfD only today and does not link to any active discussion, so I don't think that should have any bearing on the outcome of this. The simplest solution here would be for Miraclepine to self-revert these closes where a discussion continued in good faith. SportingFlyer T·C 10:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

John Percy (politician) – Overturned and relisted. The applicability of SK4 is not ambiguous, and it clearly does not cover this case or the others mentioned, where "substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered". I'm sure it was done in good faith, but there is no way in policy to justify closing those discussions without assessing the merits of the legitimate comments, so with a friendly WP:TROUT to Miraclepine I am closing this now and reopening the discussions. — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another case of WP:BADNAC, as WP:SK Criteria 4 isn't applicable. The nominator was blocked, but "if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed". Which is what happened in the AfD. The nominator's opinion should be discounted, but closing AfD was not appropriate. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. As the closer, I'd like to note that the policy says "subsequent editors", but there was only one other person voted in the AFD. ミラ P 00:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in general, so it doesn't discount cases with 1 editor only. Besides, that is not what you have practiced at another closure Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victor_Lau_(2nd_nomination), which should be speedy reverted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the sock-blocking admin User:Bbb23 to look at the other account !voting "delete", NotButtigieg (talk · contribs). I think it looks suspicious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was a weak AfD nomination, as is the delete !vote, as there is an active and very viable merge proposal. I don't think "delete" is a reasonable outcome, it would be at worst a "Redirect". It should not be at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are other similar cases. eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Lau (2nd nomination). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already boldly reverted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Burke (Canadian politician), I probably would have brought it here as well. The active merge proposal was added by Miraclepine after they closed the AfD only today and does not link to any active discussion, so I don't think that should have any bearing on the outcome of this. The simplest solution here would be for Miraclepine to self-revert these closes where a discussion continued in good faith. SportingFlyer T·C 10:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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