The reasons provided for the deletion of the article do not apply in the slightest. The reasons given were G3 and G10, and the reasons they are invalid are given below.
- It is not vandalism, a hoax, or misinformation
- It does not disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass Jack Manifold, his supporters, or those close to him
- It does not attack any of the aforementioned groups
- The article is not unsourced, as claimed in the deletion, as the oldest source of the image online was provided
- The image that the article centered around was not meant to mock the man in question, as the image was both taken and posted by someone that personally knows him, with the posting having his go-ahead
Tealyt - I agree on reflection that G10 doesn't apply, as I've pretty much said on my talk page. I maintain that G3 just about does, however it is probably borderline and am entirely open to being convinced otherwise. How about this - I can restore the content to your userspace / draftspace for you to work on there? firefly ( t · c ) 11:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G3/G10 deletion and redelete as clear A7 (non-notable individual). Stifle (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An effort appears to be in progress at Draft:Jack Manifold where this content could, in theory, be placed if it were shown that the individual in question is notable. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The individual has a very large social media following and is a member of the Dream SMP, which in my opinion qualifies as being notable. Tealyt (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know or care about MineCraft but have no issues with a compliant article being written and added. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether this meets G3 or not, it's clearly not an appropriate article. The subject is a distorted picture of a YouTuber we don't even have an article on and it was referenced exclusively to a couple of Twitter posts. Even if it is restored here it is guaranteed to get deleted one way or another in that state. Hut 8.5 18:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
El Comité 1973 – No consensus, but relist. Ignoring a couple of single-purpose accounts, it seems like we are about evenly split between people who think the no-consensus close was wrong and should be overturned to delete, and people who think that it is defensible in light of the sources (some of which were newly presented in the deletion review). Neither side appears to have an argument that's clearly stronger than the other, so this is a no consensus. The DRV instructions say that sometimes a DRV close as "no consensus" should be treated as a relist and numerous people on both sides recommend or allow a relist, so I'll invoke the discretion and do one myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Overturn to delete I don't see a no consensus there - I see a lightly attended AfD with two delete !voters and two keep !voters, one of which makes an incomprehensible argument for keeping and the other makes an argument for keeping that is not only rebutted, but the voter even agreed with the fact they were rebutted. I'd probably be a "weak overturn to delete" due to the low participation but it also appears the argument to delete is fairly strong as the sourcing isn't there (which should have been made in the discussion) and it's been scrubbed from other wikis. SportingFlyerT·C 02:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The closer fell into error in ascribing value to keep votes which were based on sources that were mirrors/duplicates. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete of the two keep comments one doesn't make any viable points at all and focuses on attacking the nominator, and the other one relied on sources which were Wikipedia mirrors. These aren't strong arguments. Furthermore the nominator's point that "There are no third-party, non-user-generated sources anywhere to be found" was not addressed. WP:V requires that article subjects must have third-party reliable sources, and per WP:DGFA AfD closes have to be consistent with the verifiability policy regardless of the opinions of the participants. Hut 8.5 12:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The nomination perhaps doesn't lay out the argument the best, and the delete voter likewise, but the keeps are an SPA apparently setup to attack the nominator and the other is rebutted. Their follow on point that the subject may not be related to the problems is a non-argument as it doesn't address sourcing or notability issues at all, and I'm not aware of any criteria which specifies not being involved in fakes leads to inclusion, so how the closer concluded they had some reasonable point seems weird. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I don't see a consensus to delete. I certainly see that concluding that there was no consensus is a reasonable conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete- One keep argument was verifiably rebutted, the other was a borderline incoherent rant against the character of the nominator that I do not care to reward. ReykYO! 23:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to delete I'm not seeing a valid argument for keeping in the AfD. And I can't find one in the article either. The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is the language barrier. I'd rather be more sure here, but... Hobit (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
wrongly closed, but relist The new sources listed below seem like enough to have a further discussion. But I do think that the closer misclosed based on the discussion as it existed. Hobit (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also don't see a consensus to delete. You can read here several academic articles that mention the magazine. The user that originally proposed to delete the article has made vandalism, he is in a crusade to erase anything related with the publication. --Sizesdefoes (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC) — Sizesdefoes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You're not fooling anybody. —Cryptic 01:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Quite obviously the same person who made the inarticulate personal attacks against the nominator in the AfD. ReykYO! 07:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I closed this discussion at AfD, so I'm entering no declaration. Upon re-reading it, I agree with the above arguments that the "keep" !votes carry little weight, and I did not examine their evidence closely enough. However, I would point out that of the two !votes to delete, only one (the nominator) engaged with the substance directly; that simply isn't enough for a consensus for deletion, and I stand by the "no consensus" assessment overall. Today, I would likely close as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closer did exactly what is expected: evaluated what was before them. The discussion appears a mess and it was relisted twice; I cannot see any other option than no consensus and no prejudice against a speedy renom. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and relist as a new AfD. The closing admin was within their discretion to close the discussion as "no consensus". Both the "keep" and "delete" arguments did not discuss the sources enough. The "keep" participant Dr.KBAHT began their comment with these two sentences: "The discussion should be focused on the subject, not the users. I see good sources. For example, the 1st one is perfectly valid." The first source in the article was:
This is an encyclopedia entry about El Comité 1973. The entry provides three paragraphs of coverage about the magazine. From Google Translate:
The magazine El Comité 1973 is a Mexican, digital and bimonthly magazine produced since July 30, 2012 by the literary group "El Comité", dedicated to dissemination, criticism and literary creation. Its mission is to spread literary texts and visual works of different creators in order to increase the culture of people around the world. As for the year that is part of the name, 1973, it alludes to the date of the death of the poet Pablo Neruda, which, in some way, tries to be a tribute to this Nobel Prize winner, whom Gabriel García Márquez called: "the greatest 20th century poet in any language”."
According to a translation of es:Enciclopedia de la Literatura en México, "The Encyclopedia of Literature in Mexico (ELEM) is an encyclopedia on Mexican literature edited by the Fundación de las Letras Mexicanas, supported by the Ministry of Culture and the National Institute of Fine Arts and Literature of Mexico."
I did not see this source addressed by the discussion's "delete" participants, so I am basing my endorsement of the "no consensus" close on this point. The rest of Dr.KBAHT's argument for retention was weak as it was based on sources "probably rephrased using AI".
I am giving no weight to the "keep" argument from AYSO60, who did not provide any policy-based arguments for retention. The arguments from Born2bgratis and Whiteguru were policy-based but they did not address the first source cited by Dr.KBAHT when Dr.KBAHT wrote, "For example, the 1st one is perfectly valid".
There was another source in the article that is potentially reliable but that I cannot find online:
Guzmán Pérez, Mario (October 3, 2017). ""Buena literatura independiente difunde El Comité 1973"". El Sol de Hidalgo (México). p. Sección Cultura.
This article was published by es:El Sol de Hidalgo. From Google Translate: "El Sol de Hidalgo is a local newspaper from the city of Pachuca de Soto, in Mexico. It is one of the newspapers with the highest circulation and sales in the city and in the state, one reason is that its cost is low compared to other newspapers. It is owned and a member of the Mexican Editorial Organization, the largest journalistic company in Mexico."
I support a relist to allow for in-depth discussion of the sources since the AfD under review did not do this. I support relisting as a new AfD since the AfD under review was closed in July 2021.
If we weren't totally sure this was an "overturn to delete", the relisting that Cunard suggests should be as a semi-protected AfD.—S MarshallT/C 09:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The AfD likely reached the wrong conclusion, but closers are not expected to engage with the arguments and sources presented to such a degree that they are to be able to form their own opinion about who's right (this creates the risk of supervotes). They must only make a prima facie assessment of the arguments so as to be able to discount obviously meritless ones, and prima facie there was no consensus here. If desired, a new AfD can be started. Sandstein 07:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but immediately relist/reopen - endorse per Sandstein's argument, but no need for us to wait for someone else to nominate when it appears we should indeed be having a different discussion. Should the DRV nom indicate that they will do so, we can just endorse and leave it to them. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; relist as a new AfD. I can't really fault the closer here: even if we heavily discount the keep !votes, the low participation makes it very difficult to justify closing as delete, per Goldsztajn et al. The best option here is simply to start afresh, particularly since there are now new arguments (e.g. Cunard's) that need to be considered. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
