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

Allow recreation, this is an unfortunate example of lack of research. This is website is notable, but editors here are often wary of pornography related website. If we are here to build an unbias Wikipedia we need to give equal coverage.

This website is among the 50 most viewed websites and is the among "oldest pornography website" and is one of "two of the most important pornographic platforms offering a representative sample for studying online pornography" these sources give this website significant and extensive coverage which pass WP:GNG, therefore I am asking for an allow recreation. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close as a valid close. The appeal is too long, didnt read, but I read the AFD. If the appellant wants to create a draft, let them write a concise request to create a draft, but I am not optimistic that they know the right length for a draft, or for a request for permission to have a draft reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: this isn't a request for overturning it is a request for allow recreation. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I see nothing about XNXX that couldn't be mentioned at XVideos as one of its subsidiaries. In fact XVideos should be updated. Buffs (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs:The reason why this should not be redirected to XVideos is that I have provided sources that show this website itself has been subject to study therefore pass our GNG and warrants a separate article. Their is more than enough information to warrant a page. When a website becomes the top 50 most viewed websites it will have notable articles giving it significant coverage. This website is far older than XVideos and has received similar levels of coverage. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore history It should have been closed as either Merge, or Redirect, not delete and redirect. The arguments in the discussion supported not having a separate article, but did not support removing the contents. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore history per DGG and allow recreation. The page has not been salted, so I do not see what is preventing the appellant from creating a significantly new version of the article. If you believe you have located enough sources to pass WP:NWEB that were not mentioned in the old version or the AfD, go right ahead. create a draft and submit to AfC. I only warn that it better be pretty good and completely different to prevent any chance of WP:G4. In fact, don't even look at the old version. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...sure looks salted to me, albeit as a redirect rather than empty. —Cryptic 16:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is embarrassing. You are right. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore history and redirect per DGG and Coffeeandcrumbs, though this was WP:TLDR, I trust those two editor(s)/administrator(s)' analysis and whenever WP:ATT or WP:HISTMERGE come in to play, I err on the side of retaining the history. A history restoration and redirect, with the applicable Rcat for history merges, serve that purpose. Doug Mehus T·C 19:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I do not see coverage passing WP:NCORP above, though don't want to discourage a new draft at AfC (which shouldn't be controversial because the page is currently salted.) However, the AfD was properly closed. Delete and redirect was a proper reading of consensus. I would write a new draft at AfC, and then once it's good to go and accepted, request the page to be unsalted again. SportingFlyer T·C 07:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: This is a website site, not a corporation. This website is listed as one of the top 50 websites. When such an entity receives such achievements reliable secondary sources always exist. This an this has receive significant coverage from reliable secondary sources therefore passes WP:GNG. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: I personally don't see all that much difference between WP:NCORP (a strict standard) and WP:NWEB (a business that runs over the web.) But in either case, I'm not convinced WP:GNG is met with those sources, and would prefer to see a draft of the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 14:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Update: since Davidson is forcing the issue, and as other have pointed out, there was clearly no consensus to keep the article. But it is mildly worrying that a closer could see a keep close in that discussion. Also, for the record, I did, per WP:REVD, Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer; but considered that, since the discussion had aleady bled onto many other pages—and considering the number of issues involved—it would only delay the inevitable. ——SN54129 14:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further update @ User:Robert McClenon and User:WilyD who have both mis-cited me now: I did not accuse, assert (per Wiley) or allege (per RMcC) a CoI: quoting the guideline, I noted a potential CoI based on the clear proximity of the closer to one particular side of the discussion. You're welcome. ——SN54129 19:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• vacate bad NAC- contentious closes shouldn't be done by non-admins, and certainly not by a member of a non-neutral voting bloc already involved in the discussion. Describing the merge/redirect arguments at the AfD as "disruption" reveals that the closer is nowhere near impartial here. Reyk _YO! 13:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert bad NAC (NB I !voted redirect in discussion). I have multiple problems with this: closure of a highly contentious discussion by a non-admin, closure by an arguably involved or at least closely linked editor, and using ‘keep’ as a proxy for ‘no consensus’. The two are in no way the same thing. The eventual outcome is probably going towards no consensus, but that decision should be made by an uninvolved admin. Hug^syrup 13:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - it's asserted here that the closer demonstrated a conflict of interest, but I can't find any indication of that. They haven't edited the article, they haven't commented on the AfD, I'm not finding any other basis for this. Is there any thing to that accusation? WilyD 14:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate If there were a textbook bad close, it is this one. ∯WBG^converse 14:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's clear what's going on here. Instead of the Squadron all turning up to vote keep, this is a new tactic where all but one of them turn up to vote keepkeepkeep and the last later closes it that way. Reyk _YO! 14:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (ec) I closed this. The OP didn't discuss the close with me and it's not clear that they expect the outcome of any close to be significantly different. Instead they mainly seem to want the discussion closed by someone else for appearance's sake. But, as the close explains, the discussion has been open for plenty of time and so I suppose that others have considered closing it but found it to be too long and tiresome. I read through the discussion this morning and it seemed to show signs of turning into a battleground or train wreck – long tangents about the ethics of the matter were being written. As the topic in question is quite unimportant, it seemed sensible to encourage everyone to move on per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:LIGHTBULB. I have lots of experience of such fractious discussions and so am not surprised to find the participants rushing straight to DRV; that is quite common in such cases. But moving the discussion on to this next step seems sensible as a way of getting it resolved for now as I'm sure we all have more important things to do. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Affirm close. Andrew Davidson acted in good faith, properly and fairly and accurately evaluated the situation, the discussion and the outcome. No change is likely to happen. It is apparent that the disgruntled participants in the discussion want a do-over. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Void close. Clearly a WP:BADNAC, for multiple reasons. Close decision, editorializing in the closing statement, and arguably, WP:INVOLVED as a participant in WP:ARS. This should be backed out and left for a neutral admin to re-close. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No evidence of COI. Could have been closed as "No consensus" but if that's all you're after, this is a waste of time. As closer noted, discussion of a possible merge can continue on the talk page, AfD is not the appropriate venue for that, and there was clearly consensus against outright deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here isn't so much the outcome, as the process. Earning a mop is not just a way to get a salary increase, it's getting buy-in from the community that they trust you to make the difficult decisions. If you want to be closing contentious AfDs, fine, we have a process for that too. But, given the editorializing in the close (keep !voters ... may work in peace without fear of disruption) I'd want to see this close voided even if it was by an admin. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's going to be a non-consensus close, it should at least be one that a) doesn't get basic facts like the length of time the AfD was open wrong, b) doesn't characterise people who didn't vote keep a "disruption", c) isn't worded in a way that biases any subsequent discussion against merging or redirecting, and d) doesn't set the precedent that the ARS can close AfDs however they like. I don't think this is too much to expect from an AfD close. It's a shame that you apparently disagree. Reyk _YO! 18:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• eh. Any admin could back out this close per WP:NACD. But I can't see a close that is different other than no consensus. And yeah, given the ARS complaints there (bogus or not), Andrew closing the discussion was not a good idea. Yes, it had been open for a long time (the relist came really slowly), but the relist was only 5-6 days before the close. It's not only important to be unbiased, it's also important to to have closures appear to be unbiased. I think reasonable people can feel this one didn't appear unbiased. So void NAC and let an uninvolved admin reclose. All that said, this never belonged at articles for deletion. It's a merge discussion which belongs on the article's talk page. There are no reasonable arguments for deletion here. This whole thing feels weird and as if it's a proxy battle for something else. Is there some off-site discussion somewhere about this? Hobit (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wasn't a regular relist, it was a nullification of an NAC close by a sockpuppet. In case you thought this wasn't already enough of a dumpster fire. It had been open only a week + five and a bit days in total, nowhere near a full month. Reyk roaming (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is one of the biggest dumpster fire AFDs I've seen. I don't think active ARS members like Andrew D. should be closing contentious AFDs that are listed on the ARS rescue list. For those unaware, the history of this particular AFD is:
      1. Dec 6 – Nominated for deletion
      2. Dec 14 – Closed as "keep" by a sockpuppet
      3. Jan 1 – After deletion, the nom redirected and merged the article
      4. Jan 2 – The nom was taken to ANI by an ARS member for redirecting the article after a keep consensus
      5. At the ANI, it was discovered that the closer was a sockpuppet
      6. Jan 2 – The AFD was unclosed and relisted (the sockpuppet account was blocked); post-relist, there was a ton of participation
      7. Jan 8 – Closed by Andrew D as "keep" again
      8. Jan 8 – Brought here to DRV – Levivich 18:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: I see Levivich's point that would have been better for an admin to close the AfD in this case, where there have been a lot of stops and starts. I think it really gets down to 1) should the article be merged into the List of lakes of Minnesota article, since it's basically statistical information in the article and perhaps any noteworthy information could be put in a note in a ((notelist)) and 2) keep the article - perhaps because of its size, protected status, or an other reason that people have found that makes the lake notable.

Am the only one that thinks that there should be a little clearer guidance on what would make a lake notable (size, protected status, other)? In other words, if this is a "Keep" does it mean any lake, anywhere is notable as a natural feature? How can we get to a guidance of what makes a lake notable?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

minor edits are underlined (foggy brain today, it seems).–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the close, and leave for an administrator. As multiple editors have said, this has obviously been a contentious AFD, and so was a contentious close. I agree with the closer that it was time to stick a fork in it and say it was done, but the closer was the wrong editor to be sticking the fork in it, and the close was the wrong close. The obvious close was No Consensus, but we don't need to close this AFD, only to unclose it. The allegation of conflict of interest is a serious one that should not be made without evidence. It appears that the closer is known to be non-neutral, being a member of the Article Rescue Squadron, but that is not the same as a conflict of interest. User:CaroleHenson raises a question about the need to clarify the notability guidelines for lakes. When should they be the subjects of articles, and when should they only be in lists? That is a good question that should be taken to the geographic notability talk page, and the contentious nature of the AFD is evidence that the guideline needs clarifying. The issue here is the close, which should be undone. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your points regarding the closure make sense to me.

I will open the issue of notability for lakes at the Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to User:Serial Number 54129 - Thank you for the explanation that you raised a concern. A concern about neutrality is very much in order, because the closer is not neutral, and a concern about COI was worth considering. It doesn't change the result, which is that the close should be overturned. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate I have zero faith in Andrew D's closure as one of the most prolific Keep-only voters; this was posted to ARS where he is a core user. His voting history does not seem to recognize multiple possible outcomes of AFDs, reflexively voting keep even when it is clear a page could be merged without loss of content per his classic recitation of "WP:ATD WP:PRESERVE". He does not have community mandate to close AFDs, and this was certainly not a consensus to keep rather than no consensus. Reywas92^Talk 19:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• These allegations and aspersions are false. For example, here's a couple of recent AfDs in which I !voted to merge the content: Super-chicken Model; Animal attacks. Note that, in both cases, the AfDs were listed on the ARS rescue list. So, while I am quite willing to accept and suggest merger when appropriate, note that Reywas92 was one of the few who !voted to delete the page in question. That position was an extremist outlier and any closer would have rejected it. Andrew🐉(talk) 01:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mind members of the ARS closing discussions. What I do object to is this idea that our anointed sysops are the only people who have sufficient maturity and good judgment to make the close calls. A little while at DRV will tell you that sysops screw it up as much as anyone else. But there was no consensus in that debate and the closer called it a "keep". Well, historically, I might have said "so what?" There was a time when "no consensus" was very similar to "keep". We treated them as just different flavours of not-delete. I think modern-day Wikipedia is a different place, and nowadays I think "no consensus" is quite a different call from "keep". DRV does need to intervene here.

  Vacating the close and getting an admin to re-close it is fatuous, ladies and gentlemen. If you've done enough thinking to know the close needs overturning, then you've done enough thinking to know what it needs to be overturned to. Overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 21:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great points.

So far, the discussion at the WP Notability (geographic features) is that 1) because there are so many lakes in Minnesota and the world, 2) as a general notability criteria --> if information about the subject can be put into a table, then there shouldn't be a separate article. I don't know how much discussion is needed and how to get folks to weigh in on the discussion that would be new to the Bachelor Lake notability question.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could list it as a RfC?—S Marshall T/C 23:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible, S Marshall. There have been some good comments to help form a good stab at a RfC, so I'd like to let it bubble a bit more and see what comes up. (The RfC for Rivers wasn't successful, but it had ideas that were better on paper than in practice I think. It used statistical river related info that isn't always available to evaluate notability). It would help to get comments from people who think Bachelor Lake should be kept and what the criteria would be for it to be a "keep", for instance. But there's some great info that I don't remember reading before.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• <ec>I do think the keeps have a pretty darn strong argument. Strong enough that a keep outcome isn't outrageous--but it certainly isn't crystal clear. And I do think that in a discussion about if there was inappropriate canvasing in a certain group, it's probably not ideal for the closer to come from that group and agree with the outcome the group would want. Hobit (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn from "The result was keep..." to "The result was keep, without prejudice to a merge or redirect...". There was vociferous support for merge and/or redirect to List of lakes of Minnesota, though not a consensus. There is a clear consensus to not "delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate There's a bit of interesting history here (correctly closed as keep back in December by a NAC sockpuppet and then vacated and relisted by an administrator.) This hasn't been open for a full month, either, but rather two weeks of discussion over the course of a month. Reading through the discussion, I think keep is the most correct close, followed by keep, without prejudice to merge and redirect, and I don't think any other closes are valid, as there's a clear and full consensus to keep this information somewhere. The problem is, this is a crystal clear WP:BADNAC, and needs to be vacated so the participants in the discussion can respect the deletion procedure, even if there's no functional change in the outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 01:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco D'Agostino (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi to everyone!

I'm here to request you a review about the deletion of the page "Francisco D'Agostino"

This is a page that i translated two times from Wikipedia France https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_D%27Agostino (exists in another languages two) and was deleted. i don't understand why is not notable a translation to english from an article notable on another languages.

I see in the nominations that was a previous problem with another person with the same name. Maybe is any confusion? Looks like was clarified in the last posts.

Now, about this subject, Mr. D'Agostino is one of the first lawyers that talks against the abortion and the gay marriage. For we, the laws students, is a refference in countries where we are starting to approve these laws. In his published books as "Elementos para una filosofía de la familia" (Elements for a family philosophy) and "Introduzione alla biopolitica" (Introduction to biopolitics) this judgment was evident, but is not until 2007 where the thinking of professor D'Agostino was shocking whit the phrase "Gays are constitutionally sterile" when he was converted on the top of the hate of the LGBT community that fight for your rights https://www.repubblica.it/2007/02/sezioni/politica/carfagna-luxuria/carfagna-luxuria/carfagna-luxuria.html?refresh_ce

D'Agostino is active member since 1994 of Pontifical Academy for Life, which members are designed from the Pope. http://www.academyforlife.va/content/pav/it.html

Professor D'Agostino is usually a invited professor in the New York School of Laws. Has, at least, 6 published books in spanish and italian (The wiki has the ISBN of them)

I kindly request you the revision of this deletion. I don't understand why this subject is not notable when for us, the law community, is. Maybe are not much popular to the english speaker people, but, for us yes.

Thanks for read this and i'll be looking your comments. Inhigo (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The AfD was from October, so it's potentially a stale issue. I don't see any problems with the way it was closed, despite the low participation. However, the sources I see in the nom, the French version, and from a quick Google search (spelled in sources as "Francisco D'Agostino" or "Francesco D'Agostino"), might support WP:NPROF (if not WP:GNG; they're all fairly brief mentions or non-independent). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] However, I can't see the deleted version, so I don't know if these sources were all in the deleted version or not, or if there'd be consensus to keep at a new WP:AfD based on these sources. – Levivich 07:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've temp undeleted it so you (or whoever) can examine the sources. Note that two different guys have had bios there, so the history is a bit weird. WilyD 07:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Wily! Looks like there were two recent deletions (of the Italian subject with this name, not counting the Venezuelan person with the same name who is not relevant to this DRV): this version was deleted at the above-referenced AfD in October. A recreated version (recreated by the filer) with one additional reference and 3 new External links (a fourth was apparently a deadlink) was G4'd in January. Despite the new links, I think it was a proper G4. So I would endorse both the October AfD deletion and the January G4 deletion. However, of the sources I've posted here, it looks like only 3 were in the prior versions of the article, so I still think that it might be possible to recreate a version of this article that would survive a new AfD. – Levivich 16:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Leviv! Thanks for your time. What do you mean with "it looks like only 3 were in the prior versions of the article, so I still think that it might be possible to recreate a version of this article that would survive a new AfD."? Sorry, i'm a newbie in the editors slang Inhigo (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi Inhigo, no problem! Sorry for my use of slang, I forgot to link to some of the terms I was using. Here's an explanation of what I meant:
          • I don't know if it's done the same way at the French wiki, but we have a very specific way of handling deletions and deletion reviews. Our deletion review page (WP:DRV) is specifically for answering the question, "Did this deletion comply with our policies?" (Our deletion policy is at WP:DELPOL.) That's a different question than "Should we have an article about this subject?" So it's possible that a particular version of an article was properly deleted, but nevertheless a new version of the article could be written that would not be deleted. I think this is the situation here for this article.
          • We have two basic deletion methods: WP:AFD ("articles for deletion") is the main method, where editors discuss whether a page should be deleted, and the decision is made based on consensus. The article on D'Agostino was at AFD in October (link); although few editors participated in it, they looked at the article and decided it didn't meet our notability guidelines, and so there was consensus to delete it. I think this deletion was correct under our policies. The editors may not have seen all the sources (especially in Italian), and so they may have made their decision based on incomplete information, but nevertheless, the administrator who deleted the article was following the editors' consensus in the AFD, which is what an administrator is supposed to do according to our policies. So, no error in the October deletion.
          • The second deletion method is "speedy deletion" (WP:CSD), which does not require an AFD discussion or consensus; instead, a single administrator can delete a page, but only if the page meets the very specific criteria at WP:CSD. One of those criteria is WP:G4. G4 is for a page that has been deleted at an AFD, and then is recreated, and the new version is similar to the deleted version. That is what happened here in January. The page was recreated, again as a translation from the French version. It is basically the same as the version of the page that was deleted in October (because the October version was also translated from the French version). So, the January version was properly deleted under the G4 CSD criteria, because it was similar to the October version, and the October version was deleted after an AFD. So, no error in the January deletion, either.
          • My personal opinion is that the editors in the October AFD did not look at all the sources that were available. For example, most of the sources I linked to above were not discussed at the October AFD, nor were they included in the October version of the article. So, I think it may be possible for someone to create a new version of this article. The new version of the article may still be nominated for deletion at AFD, and it might still be deleted–I don't know what the consensus of editors will be. But based on the additional sources, I think there's at least a possibility that someone can create a new version, and if it was nominated for deletion, the consensus of editors might be to keep it. This new version would have to be substantially different from the prior version–meaning different from the French version; not just a translation from the French. Ideally, it would have at least two but preferably three or more sources that met our general notability criteria. We also have a notability guideline specifically for professors (WP:NPROF), and the sources might show that one or more NPROF criteria are met. This is just my opinion; other editors might disagree with me.
          • So, to summarize, I think the prior deletions were correct under policy, but I think it might be possible to make a new version that would not be deleted, if the new version had additional sources that showed that D'Agostino is notable under GNG/NPROF. I'm not sure if the sources I linked to above are enough to show D'Agostino is notable; however, someone else (especially someone who speaks Italian) might be able to find better sources than the ones I've found. Hope this helps! – Levivich 17:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi Leviv! Thanks for your detailed explanation! So, i understand that: the last two deletions (of articles that i created) where right according the Wikipedia rules. But, you think that a new version, quoting more references (specially the italian references) maybe can be listed as NPROF. Understanding that is a risk that i take because can be deleted for the editors again. If i'm right with this, then, i can talk with my classmates that speak italian to do a better article using all the references that we can found. What do you think? Thanks for your references, BTW. In this case, do you recommend start with a new article or do as i did in the past, creating a translation (but not a exactly translation of the french wiki that not meet the criteria of the english wiki)? Thanks again!!!! Inhigo (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Happy I could help, Inhigo. I would suggest creating it as a draft (create the page Draft:Francisco D'Agostino, or maybe it should be Draft:Francesco D'Agostino, I'm not sure which spelling is correct or used most often by the sources). Whether you start with the French translation and expand it, or start "from scratch" with a completely new version as Robert suggests below, once you've created the draft, you can submit it to WP:Articles for Creation (WP:AFC) to be reviewed. Submitting it for AFC review is not required, but sometimes it can help to have an experienced reviewer take a look at the article and see if they agree that the new sources show D'Agostino is notable under GNG/NPROF. If it passes AFC, it can then be moved from the Draft space into the main article space (meaning, from Draft:Francisco D'Agostino to Francisco D'Agostino). – Levivich 19:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • A lot of thanks to you User:Levivich, User:Robert McClenon and User:WilyD. I started the Draft:Francisco D'Agostino (Originally in Italy is Francesco, but in the biography in Spanish, French and English appears as Francisco) using the deleted translation as skeleton. We'll be improving the article in the next days and when we'll ready, we'll submit to review. Thanks to all and have a nice day! Inhigo (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if this is an appeal, but it appears to be a request to create another article about the subject. Thank you to User:Levivich for explaining the complexities to User:Inhigo. My advice to User:Inhigo would be to create the article from scratch rather than translating an article, especially since the article appears to be short. There has been a complicating factor that there have been articles about different people with the same name at different names. If the articles had existed at the same time, disambiguation would be used. Disambiguation may be necessary in the future; make a note to that effect on the talk page of the draft. As it is, I suggest that the author create a draft from scratch. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Very light participation, and weakish nomination & !vote. Someone has more to say. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and send to AfD Basically a slight variation on SmokeyJoe's opinion to create a new AfD given the fact the last one was a few months ago. If this is improper I'm fine with a relist. I can't tell if this is notable, but it deserves further discussion given the weak AfD and the potential it could be kept, and while I think creating a draft is fine I don't see any reason why we can't take a shortcut on this one. SportingFlyer T·C 00:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This gentleman is an emeritus full professor and head of department at University of Rome Tor Vergata whose achievements largely predated the internet age. The outcome of the previous AfD is self-evidently a mistake caused by the fact that the name is relatively common and the search results are clouded by other people who've attracted more recent attention. There's nothing the matter with the article in French and no reason not to use it as the basis of the new article. Please don't list this at AfD, because that would be a ridiculous waste of volunteer time. —S Marshall T/C 16:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Overturn to non-consensus as an inadequate discussion, optional relist. But I think if is improved a little, it will be kept. The itWP has the fullest version at the moment, because it discusses the controversy. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse as a valid close. Participation was light, but it was relisted. There may be merit to keeping this article if it's improved, so I'd support an undeletion & draftification of the article and have it go through AfC. I'm hesitant to support a relist, but as RoySmith notes below, the actual discussion was fairly light. So, I guess, this is a weak endorse/weak relist, if that's possible and makes sense. Doug Mehus T·C 03:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: are you sure about the relist? This looks like it was open for the standard seven days. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith You're right; I think I got this confused with another DRV, though it's not immediately clear which one as the one at the top of the page wasn't it. Nevertheless, I do agree completely with your comments re: Sandstein's excellent closure record, which was actually one of the reasons why for my !vote. I've never seen any of Sandstein's closures to be even mildly problematic, though I do agree some of the opinions expressed in this AfD were weak. I also considered S Marshall's comments above in not wanting to see this end up at AfD, hence my "weak relist." --Doug Mehus T·C 18:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. There was almost no useful discussion. The nom simply said, fails WP:NPROF, with nothing beyond that. Not even an indication that WP:BEFORE was done. The only other comment was from an editor with limited experience who starts out by saying, my research was cursory. These are not the arguments on which an article should be deleted. I have no idea why this wasn't relisted. At most, this should have been closed as WP:SOFTDELETE, Sandstein usually does excellent work, but I'm afraid this one wasn't up to his usual high standard. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• RoySmith, thanks for the ping. I didn't notice that this was one of my own closures. As I was not contacted prior to this review request, I endorse my own closure. We have two "delete" opinions, of which at least one makes a substantive and reasonable argument, and no "keep" opinions. That's enough for a "delete" consensus. I have no opinion as to whether the subject is notable on the merits. If he is, any user remains free to recreate the article in a version that addresses the reasons for which it was deleted. Sandstein 07:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for @RoySmith, Sandstein, S Marshall, and DGG: or any other experienced editor or administrator, per Sandstein's comments above, is it not a requirement that the XfD closer be notified of deletion review and, if so, can this not be procedurally closed for not notifying the closer? I'm just curious if it's a formal requirement or more of a strongly advised common courtesy because I think, first course of action should be to ask the closer to reconsider their close and/or relist before listing at DRV, as BrownHairedGirl did with me with my one and only MfD close. BHG, feel free to chime in as well as you also always have excellent insight and expertise. Doug Mehus T·C 18:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: it says in the instructions, Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer. So, I don't see it as a strict requirement. On the other hand, it's certainly a courtesy which shouldn't be ignored. I know I'd be annoyed if one of my closes were brought to DRV and nobody brought it to my attention. And, as a practical matter, it can often be a quicker path to resolving any problems, so it's a good idea. In my personal opinion, procedurally closing a DRV because of a failure to notify would be excessively bureaucratic. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Thanks for clarifying. I guess I missed the consider, but you're right, it's definitely slightly more than a personal courtesy to bring a close straight to DRV without first discussing because one could've potentially avoided a DRV. By the same token, you're right in that procedurally closing a DRV because the nom didn't notify the closer would just had a second procedural diversion, to have the nominator notify and then bring it back it to DRV. Doug Mehus T·C 18:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want the discussion closer to be the gatekeeper for a DRV.—S Marshall T/C 20:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus and S Marshall:: A discussion with the closer is never a gatekeeper, because the complainant is still entitled to go to DRV.

I see no downside to starting with a discussion with the closer. Sometimes it leads to agreement, as in the case of my discussion with Dmehus. That's a great result: everyone happy, without all the community time needed for a DRV.

OTOH, if the prior discussion doesn't reach agreement, it's not wasteful. At best it clarifies the point(s) of disagreement, at worst, if it descends into acrimony, it's a pointer for DRV to consider how much to AGF. So I can see no reason not to try discussion first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We want people to have recourse to deletion review, and we want to minimize the amount of delay and process they need to go through in order to get here. Also, some newer users in this situation will perceive the discussion closer as a hostile authority figure, and may be put off or even intimidated.—S Marshall T/C 15:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that mis-states the goals. What we actually want is for the issue to be resolved with the amount of delay and process. A post on the closer's talk give the possibility of resolution within a few hours, whereas DRV takes a minimum of 7 days ... so a quick attempt to resolve it directly gives the fastest resolution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then we disagree, because although I think this should be an easy venue to access, I don't feel that speedy resolution is the key goal. I feel that DRV is about achieving a fair process which a user with a grievance can see is fair; analysing and improving our deletion discussions; and monitoring for abuse of the discussion closure process. In the last ten years we've never identified an abusive sysop, but if abuse was taking place we'd be one of the best places to spot it.—S Marshall T/C 10:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall and BrownHairedGirl, some wonderful WP:WIKIDIPLOMACY occurring here in this quasi-related sidebar discussion. You both make excellent arguments, and I agree with you both. For clarity, I originally thought S Marshall meant that the DRV closer is never to be a gatekeeper, which I agreed with completely. It's true that newbies might see, wrongly, a discussion closer as some sort of authority figure, and thinking WP:DRV is the only recourse (similar to a bank customer that complains to a banking regulator or consumer protection watchdog), so there are valid reasons to go straight to DRV. That being said, I do also agree wholeheartedly with BrownHairedGirl that to not first contact the closer results in needless bureaucracy. One option might be to add a guideline to the DRV policy page that suggests where a DRV participant observes that the proposer hasn't first contacted the XfD closer, to let them know they can withdraw the DRV as "speedy keep" (although, as S Marshall and RoySmith noted previously when I wished to withdraw early a DRV nomination, there was no specific policy that permitted this so they had to use common sense to handle it). --Doug Mehus T·C 17:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus, my understanding is that the contacting the closer is not required, but expected. My personal practice is to oppose review requests in which the closer was not contacted beforehand; others have legitimate reasons to take a different view. Sandstein 17:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, a reasonable practice. I've been !voting as "procedural close" as a personal practice in such respects in the past, but per RoySmith, S Marshall, and yourself, I think your approach is reasonable. Not sure if that'd be a reasonable argument on its own or if I'd need to couch such a future !vote in WP:IAR or professional courtesy or not, but I think it's a very reasonable approach to take. Doug Mehus T·C 17:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The discussion was inadequate to establish a consensus to delete. As the topic is being revisited as Draft:Francisco D'Agostino, I suggest that a history merge be done to preserve details of the earlier version. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]