Ibrahim Al-Dulaimi – WP:G3 speedy deletion endorsed, but draftification permitted. This means the creator needs to persuade an admin or WP:REFUND to restore the page and that the creator is capable of writing a competent article about this topic, which I personally have some doubts about. Sandstein 13:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ibrahim Al-Dulaimi (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) I agree with Wikipedia's policy of G3 standards. I contributed, persevered, and worked very hard in obtaining private information. Through my searches and searches, I made sure of all sources and activities to get to the real information, I leave for make sure From some sources: http://www.winstarchem.com/news-detail1.php?newsId=6 greetings to you all DodeDznIQ (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment - This is a poorly stated appeal, probably because the appellant doesn't know enough English to be able to file a reasonable appeal, and likely the original article was equally poorly written. We should assume good faith and assume that the originator did not think that this was a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Weak Overturn to Allow AFD - This is a case where doubt on a speedy deletion should be resolved in favor of sending the article to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Assuming this is similar to the content of the article, I would endorse this on both WP:G3 and WP:G10. Sources are either completely unreliable or do not name the subject. Jumpytoo Talk 07:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment as deleter: honestly, it's hard to describe what the article was (though the diff Jumpytoo links above does capture the gist of it). It felt to me like the author took a biography of someone else, changed the name, and then added extremely dubious claims of notoriety that were extremely difficult to believe, poorly sourced or unsourced (seriously - the source the article creator presents at the top of this section is...a chemical company's website? something about that is very wrong), and major BLPvios (saying that the article subject had been arrested and/or sent to prison, if I remember right). It reminded me of some self-aggrandizing fantasy autobiographies I've seen before, except for the whole arrest bit. I believe it was both clearly made-up (so eligible for G3) and presented serious biographical issues, and so I feel my speedy was justified. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Can this be proven? about It reminded me of some self-aggrandizing fantasy autobiographies I've seen before, except for the whole arrest bit. I believe it was both clearly made-up some sources, but they are in the Arabic language..it is difficult for you to understand them.. source from some source : https://www.awla.news/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D9%83%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%AD/ I am trying to find other sources. DodeDznIQ (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, noting lack of confidence with the experience of the author. Allow him to try again in userspace or draftspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Draftify. The article was written in poor English, but that would be easily fixable and is not a reason to delete. The article was sourced, and those sources seem to show that the claimed activities did take place, however they do not show that they were done by a person of this name. The source presented in this appeal, which was not in the deleted article, does verify that a person of this name was part of LulzSec, which together with the other sources don't make me confident this was a hoax and G10 certainly does not apply as the article is neutrally written. I can't object to the G3 without the new source though, so this was not a bad speedy. It however not survive AfD in its present state - it needs sources that tie the person of this name to the activities described - including but not limited to the source presented here, so putting it in draftspace (or userspace if the author prefers) seems like the best option. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yes , The article was written in poor English I am trying to find other sources. after that i modify article for the better Thanks Thryduulf DodeDznIQ (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] draftify This may possibly be a hoax, but it is not obviously a hoax. The sources are not necessarily about this person, but they are not the degree of irrelevancy that makes a hoax obvious. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ibrahim Al-Dulaimi – WP:G3 speedy deletion endorsed, but draftification permitted. This means the creator needs to persuade an admin or WP:REFUND to restore the page and that the creator is capable of writing a competent article about this topic, which I personally have some doubts about. Sandstein 13:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree with Wikipedia's policy of G3 standards. I contributed, persevered, and worked very hard in obtaining private information. Through my searches and searches, I made sure of all sources and activities to get to the real information, I leave for make sure From some sources: http://www.winstarchem.com/news-detail1.php?newsId=6 greetings to you all DodeDznIQ (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a poorly stated appeal, probably because the appellant doesn't know enough English to be able to file a reasonable appeal, and likely the original article was equally poorly written. We should assume good faith and assume that the originator did not think that this was a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn to Allow AFD - This is a case where doubt on a speedy deletion should be resolved in favor of sending the article to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Assuming this is similar to the content of the article, I would endorse this on both WP:G3 and WP:G10. Sources are either completely unreliable or do not name the subject. Jumpytoo Talk 07:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as deleter: honestly, it's hard to describe what the article was (though the diff Jumpytoo links above does capture the gist of it). It felt to me like the author took a biography of someone else, changed the name, and then added extremely dubious claims of notoriety that were extremely difficult to believe, poorly sourced or unsourced (seriously - the source the article creator presents at the top of this section is...a chemical company's website? something about that is very wrong), and major BLPvios (saying that the article subject had been arrested and/or sent to prison, if I remember right). It reminded me of some self-aggrandizing fantasy autobiographies I've seen before, except for the whole arrest bit. I believe it was both clearly made-up (so eligible for G3) and presented serious biographical issues, and so I feel my speedy was justified. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be proven? about It reminded me of some self-aggrandizing fantasy autobiographies I've seen before, except for the whole arrest bit. I believe it was both clearly made-up

some sources, but they are in the Arabic language..it is difficult for you to understand them..

source from some source : https://www.awla.news/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D9%83%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%AD/

I am trying to find other sources. DodeDznIQ (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, noting lack of confidence with the experience of the author. Allow him to try again in userspace or draftspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The article was written in poor English, but that would be easily fixable and is not a reason to delete. The article was sourced, and those sources seem to show that the claimed activities did take place, however they do not show that they were done by a person of this name. The source presented in this appeal, which was not in the deleted article, does verify that a person of this name was part of LulzSec, which together with the other sources don't make me confident this was a hoax and G10 certainly does not apply as the article is neutrally written. I can't object to the G3 without the new source though, so this was not a bad speedy. It however not survive AfD in its present state - it needs sources that tie the person of this name to the activities described - including but not limited to the source presented here, so putting it in draftspace (or userspace if the author prefers) seems like the best option. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes , The article was written in poor English

I am trying to find other sources.

after that i modify article for the better

Thanks Thryduulf DodeDznIQ (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
draftify This may possibly be a hoax, but it is not obviously a hoax. The sources are not necessarily about this person, but they are not the degree of irrelevancy that makes a hoax obvious. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Martina Navratilova, Template:Naomi Osaka, Template:Chris Evert and Template:Bob and Mike Bryan – Seems like there is a consensus to relist here - a fair amount of the initial comments are talking about the merits of the templates themselves rather than the merits of the close (per WP:DRVPURPOSE the main scope of deletion review) but all comments boil down to arguments about whether the delete outcome was appropriate or are recommending further discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Martina Navratilova (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Template:Naomi Osaka (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Template:Chris Evert (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Template:Bob and Mike Bryan (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) While I agree with the elimination of most of the tennis player navboxes listed in the bulk nomination, which simply mirrored their respective career statistics articles, these 4 templates should not have been deleted. With respect to the nominator, saying "all of these players don't deserve one" of a list including these players only shows very limited knowledge of the subject area. Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert are two of the greatest female players of all time by any metric, Naomi Osaka is the highest-earning female athlete of all time [1] and the Bryan Brothers are the greatest men's doubles team of all time. Each of these players/team have numerous related articles, which were linked in the analysis by Nigej. One of the only two delete votes, by Fyunck(click), was explicitly "delete most", not delete all. I therefore request that the deletion of these 4 templates be overturned. This is not an endorsement of the current formatting of the templates, which certainly can be improved/reverted to a superior state. Sod25 (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Two things. To be honest the next ones to go up for deletion should be Federer, Serena, Nadal, and Djokovic. I would get rid of all of them! Or perhaps put them back to text only and cut them down by 90%. If they fail to be deleted by consensus then I would relook at this list and keep all but Osaka. She's a blip on the radar compared to the rest. Earning s isn't enough... heck in ten years a player on the tour for one season and winning one event will have earned more then anyone ever. There have been scores to 100s of players more accomplished than Osaka. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Agree with trimming down by 90%. We have many navboxes for the top athletes in sport in Category:Sportsperson navigational boxes, so we should not delete e.g. Federer's when he has so many related articles. Osaka while not in the league of Navratilova/Evert achievement-wise, is leagues ahead marketing-wise, with e.g. her own series Naomi Osaka (TV series). That's why I would keep her template. Sod25 (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Fyunch(click) explicitly said I would get rid of all of them for all players... even Roger Federer and Serena Williams. and nowhere implied that the "delete most" bold statement meant "delete most... [of those listed in this discussion]" given the above quotation. Hence, deletions for all those listed. I have no other comment. --Izno (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Your close was perfectly reasonable given the participation at the discussion, I should have explicitly said that, sorry. I will not speak for Fyunck(click), but my interpretation was that given that the bulk nomination didn't include all player navboxes, and therefore we would be keeping the very top players' templates at least for now, he would delete most but not all of those listed in the discussion, e.g. keep Chris Evert's. Sod25 (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I wasn't meaning to suggest that my close must have been reasonable. ;) Izno (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Personally I wouldn't be against recreating these (except perhaps Osaka), as long as they were turned into genuine WP:NAVBOXes, focussed on navigation. It's worth noting that we don't have categories for any of these (see Category:Wikipedia categories named after tennis players) and a category could be as useful a way of grouping articles relating to these topics, as a navbox. I'm generally of the view that we should be creating categories for these sort of things before we create navboxes. Nigej (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Categories have been created for all of them now + Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lenglen & Agassi. Sod25 (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] One thing I'll add is that the templates requested for review don't fit the requirements for navboxes. For all of them, there were few or no articles outside the main subject, the tennis players. The other remaining templates for tennis players should be looked at whether they should be nominated or be kept. However, all those that have been deleted and are currently around should probably remove all links to the tournaments and events these players appeared in. Victories are more important to the subject at hand than just appearances. However, creating the categories are not a bad idea, but at the moment the cats are the best way to navigate between articles. Some don't even have more than the basic five links needed for a navbox, but even if they do meet the basic requirements it still doesn't seem to deserve one because there might not be enough to connect to the overall tennis player subject. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Relist - The dispute should have been relisted for a clarification of what the exceptions were to deleting the templates. In view of the number of templates and the complexity, it should have been left open for longer than one week, and still should be open for longer than one week. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] There's nothing complex about a dozen navboxes all of the same character, and all !votes were to delete, with no reason to expect exceptions in the statements of the participants. Feel free to !vote relist, but please find a better rationale. Izno (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] When I see a DRV like this, which contains little analysis of the close but a lot of arguments that could/should have been made in the TfD, what I see in it is that the community hasn't finished talking about these templates. And I can see an arguable case in our rules about why we should have them:- categories exist, and per WP:CLN, where there's a category, a navigational template is also usually appropriate. As far as I can see I don't think these templates were navigational when nominated but they could perhaps be converted by individual editors. Izno, would you be willing to consider unbundling just these four and relisting them? In asking this I don't mean to imply that there was any problem with your close, I just suggest that in all the circumstances it might be reasonable to allow the community more time to noodle.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] I have no objection to reopening an XFD for any templates listed in this DRV or any of those listed in the original XFD, but would prefer DRV run to conclusion in lieu of further action on my part. Izno (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Relist these templates. The case that the group nomination was right is contested. I am not sure a relist will change the result, but TfD is the right place to discuss it. No criticism of the close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Relist/Overturn I suspect that a second discussion will result in these being deleted, but the argument that these 4 should not be included in the consensus of the first bulk nomination is valid. However, we should not re-open the original bulk nomination -- the closer here can either overturn (with NPASR) or create a new discussion for just these 4. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:Martina Navratilova, Template:Naomi Osaka, Template:Chris Evert and Template:Bob and Mike Bryan – Seems like there is a consensus to relist here - a fair amount of the initial comments are talking about the merits of the templates themselves rather than the merits of the close (per WP:DRVPURPOSE the main scope of deletion review) but all comments boil down to arguments about whether the delete outcome was appropriate or are recommending further discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

While I agree with the elimination of most of the tennis player navboxes listed in the bulk nomination, which simply mirrored their respective career statistics articles, these 4 templates should not have been deleted. With respect to the nominator, saying "all of these players don't deserve one" of a list including these players only shows very limited knowledge of the subject area. Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert are two of the greatest female players of all time by any metric, Naomi Osaka is the highest-earning female athlete of all time [1] and the Bryan Brothers are the greatest men's doubles team of all time. Each of these players/team have numerous related articles, which were linked in the analysis by Nigej. One of the only two delete votes, by Fyunck(click), was explicitly "delete most", not delete all. I therefore request that the deletion of these 4 templates be overturned. This is not an endorsement of the current formatting of the templates, which certainly can be improved/reverted to a superior state. Sod25 (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. To be honest the next ones to go up for deletion should be Federer, Serena, Nadal, and Djokovic. I would get rid of all of them! Or perhaps put them back to text only and cut them down by 90%. If they fail to be deleted by consensus then I would relook at this list and keep all but Osaka. She's a blip on the radar compared to the rest. Earning s isn't enough... heck in ten years a player on the tour for one season and winning one event will have earned more then anyone ever. There have been scores to 100s of players more accomplished than Osaka. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with trimming down by 90%. We have many navboxes for the top athletes in sport in Category:Sportsperson navigational boxes, so we should not delete e.g. Federer's when he has so many related articles. Osaka while not in the league of Navratilova/Evert achievement-wise, is leagues ahead marketing-wise, with e.g. her own series Naomi Osaka (TV series). That's why I would keep her template. Sod25 (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fyunch(click) explicitly said I would get rid of all of them for all players... even Roger Federer and Serena Williams. and nowhere implied that the "delete most" bold statement meant "delete most... [of those listed in this discussion]" given the above quotation. Hence, deletions for all those listed. I have no other comment. --Izno (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your close was perfectly reasonable given the participation at the discussion, I should have explicitly said that, sorry. I will not speak for Fyunck(click), but my interpretation was that given that the bulk nomination didn't include all player navboxes, and therefore we would be keeping the very top players' templates at least for now, he would delete most but not all of those listed in the discussion, e.g. keep Chris Evert's. Sod25 (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wasn't meaning to suggest that my close must have been reasonable. ;) Izno (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I wouldn't be against recreating these (except perhaps Osaka), as long as they were turned into genuine WP:NAVBOXes, focussed on navigation. It's worth noting that we don't have categories for any of these (see Category:Wikipedia categories named after tennis players) and a category could be as useful a way of grouping articles relating to these topics, as a navbox. I'm generally of the view that we should be creating categories for these sort of things before we create navboxes. Nigej (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories have been created for all of them now + Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lenglen & Agassi. Sod25 (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I'll add is that the templates requested for review don't fit the requirements for navboxes. For all of them, there were few or no articles outside the main subject, the tennis players. The other remaining templates for tennis players should be looked at whether they should be nominated or be kept. However, all those that have been deleted and are currently around should probably remove all links to the tournaments and events these players appeared in. Victories are more important to the subject at hand than just appearances. However, creating the categories are not a bad idea, but at the moment the cats are the best way to navigate between articles. Some don't even have more than the basic five links needed for a navbox, but even if they do meet the basic requirements it still doesn't seem to deserve one because there might not be enough to connect to the overall tennis player subject. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - The dispute should have been relisted for a clarification of what the exceptions were to deleting the templates. In view of the number of templates and the complexity, it should have been left open for longer than one week, and still should be open for longer than one week. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing complex about a dozen navboxes all of the same character, and all !votes were to delete, with no reason to expect exceptions in the statements of the participants. Feel free to !vote relist, but please find a better rationale. Izno (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I see a DRV like this, which contains little analysis of the close but a lot of arguments that could/should have been made in the TfD, what I see in it is that the community hasn't finished talking about these templates. And I can see an arguable case in our rules about why we should have them:- categories exist, and per WP:CLN, where there's a category, a navigational template is also usually appropriate. As far as I can see I don't think these templates were navigational when nominated but they could perhaps be converted by individual editors. Izno, would you be willing to consider unbundling just these four and relisting them? In asking this I don't mean to imply that there was any problem with your close, I just suggest that in all the circumstances it might be reasonable to allow the community more time to noodle.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to reopening an XFD for any templates listed in this DRV or any of those listed in the original XFD, but would prefer DRV run to conclusion in lieu of further action on my part. Izno (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist these templates. The case that the group nomination was right is contested. I am not sure a relist will change the result, but TfD is the right place to discuss it. No criticism of the close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist/Overturn I suspect that a second discussion will result in these being deleted, but the argument that these 4 should not be included in the consensus of the first bulk nomination is valid. However, we should not re-open the original bulk nomination -- the closer here can either overturn (with NPASR) or create a new discussion for just these 4. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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