|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
To be clear, I'm not opening this DRV just because I disagree with the outcome, but because the closer's rationale was wanting. I have raised this issue on their talk page, but they have not responded. By raw vote count, there are 3 deletes (including nom), 1 merge, and 5 keeps, but more importantly, none of the keep rationales made policy- or guideline-based arguments. I'd like at least a consensus here that the closer's judgment was correct. Ovinus (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I would like it restored so I can make the appropriate corrections (which I was making but it was deleted before I could post them) since it was deleted for a WP:G11 not for copyright infringement or anything else I can change the sentences and make it encyclopedic and objective Jdtw2022 (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This AFD was closed as delete. However, I do not think the closer recognized that a policy based argument made by Reading Beans (who quoted NPOL directly using green text and connected how the subject passed it) had shifted the final comments all to keep. This was further supported by evidence from Soman. This should be overturned and re-listed to allow further discussion or be overturned as no consensus. 4meter4 (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe there was a clear majority consensus that the article should be deleted due to a failure of WP:SIGCOV. There was consistent comment that the sources did not meet the standard of that guideline per WP:ROUTINE, and there was no rebuttal of that argument. As such, I believe this close should be overturned in favor of deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The afd is rejected simply everytime without any logical reasoning. The actress has clearly passed WP:NACTOR with her multiple lead roles in the shows Nimki Mukhiya, Nimki Vidhayak and Mann Kee Awaaz Pratigya 2. She is currently playing the lead in the show Hara Sindoor. So she is eligible to have a Wikipedia article with the four lead roles she has played. I don't understand what is wrong with afc reviewers that they are constantly rejecting this draft without any logical reasons when Gurung has everything required for an article. Commonedits (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The list was deleted under WP:LISTCRUFT, however there was nothing indiscriminate about the list. It was a straight up factual list of players who had won this specific cup. The information was straight forward and clear. Some argument was that the list violated WP:SYNTH, which is bizarre, as lists can't be a conclusion of information. Lists are a collection of information. From List of Star Wars books or List of PlayStation games (A–L) or List of James Bond films. This list just needed work to bring it up to standard, which no one had done. I suggest over-turn to draft space for improvement and put a hold on this AfD. Govvy (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I disagree with the closing admin that the nominator failed to advance a valid deletion rationale. I think they were attempting to express a concern about notability. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The Afd was wrongly closed by the nom with rage statement. I am not challenging the outcome, but for future reference, it is requested to redo the close by an uninvolved user. Consensus discussion about the bad close at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Afd short circuited with inflammatory and accusatory statements. Venkat TL (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This was closed as keep at 5k to 3d/r with zero given close rationale and apparently without weighing !votes. Talk page discussion suggests the closer simply agreed with the keep !voters that someone playing at the top level of football in their country "is notable". Since that argument is invalid, due to NSPORT being subordinate to GNG and NFOOTY being deprecated, and since the only GNG-based reasons put forth by keeps rested on unreliable sources and passing mentions in routine match reports, the close should be overturned and the AfD relisted. JoelleJay (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
A non-admin closure is not appropriate unless everyone agrees. Two said to keep it, one said to redirect, the nominator and two others said to delete it. An administrator should close this. Dream Focus 19:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I created Draft:Matthew Tye. Two sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are:
The article was deleted in two AfDs: 17 May 2017 and 2 July 2018 (an 8 August 2009 AfD was about a different person). I supported deletion in both AfDs. A deletion review was closed as "Decision endorsed" on 30 October 2021. As noted in the DRV, the DRV was started shortly after this 16 September 2021 Reddit thread where the subject asked his followers to recreate the Wikipedia article. This led to a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#Off-wiki nonsense and a series of unfortunate coincidences.... Owing to the significant controversy surrounding the article and the full protection of the title, I am bringing this article to DRV for community review. Since the two AfDs closed as "delete", Matthew Tye has received significant coverage in reliable sources. After I rewrote the article at Draft:Matthew Tye, "G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" does not apply. Restore the article by moving Draft:Matthew Tye to Matthew Tye. Cunard (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Another involved non-admin closure by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) I discovered while collecting evidence for an Arbcom case. The article was unilaterally redirected by TPH. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I only just saw this page was deleted recently. I would have contributed to the discussion or strengthened the case for notability if I had known the page was being considered for deletion. This page was part of an Australian women artists project and may have been started by a trainee editor who may not have been aware of all the policies re notability for artists and may not have access to the same sources I do. There were mistakes made in using a commercial gallery as a reference for the non-commercial and important Holmes a Court collection, which is an early and ongoing non-commercial collection of Indigenous art. So there are two non-commercial galleries for Jeannie Pwerle and I might be able to find more given time for more research. I also find that the notability standard for female Indigenous artists is very difficult as it generally requires references to reviews or articles written by white Australians. The work of Indigenous artists can be notable amongst curators and the collectors of Indigenous art without being written about. However as Jeannie Pwerle was an early Utopian artist and paints her personal yam dreaming stories, it may be possible to show notability as an artist who has contributed to a significant new art movement which is one of the criteria for notability for artists. I have looked at the site for the admin user:Stifle who closed the delete discussion and he seems to have waived his right to be consulted first. So I am asking here for two things before I do any more research and draft a new article on Jeannie Pwerle 1. Is it worth me doing some more research to see if there are more references for her notability and more examples of her paintings in collections or will it be a hopeless waste of time if a new article is going to be deleted again or if no-one is willing to re-open her page for me to work on? 2. Is it possible for me to find or be sent the draft of her page that was deleted so I can see what needs to be changed or where mistakes were made? And apologies for this long comment. I have not tried to object to a deletion before. LPascal (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)LPascal
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I agree there was not sufficient notability to keep the article, but the proposal to redirect to Tabcorp rather than delete was a valid alternative to deletion that should have been considered prior to deletion being approved as the consensus. Redirection was raised by a number of users as an alternative outcome. The only comment against redirection was made by a user who was investigated for sockpuppetry during the process, and the fact that it was a demerged entity from Tabcorp does not make Tabcorp an inappropriate redirection. Deus et lex (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
First, the last comment was from a day ago, so as the discussion is not stale, it should be relisted. Second, per WP:AFDNOTAVOTE, strenght of the arguments should be considered. The closer says " those arguing for keep are fairly convincing", but does not explain why. The first keep vote did not provide any rationale ("Keep, but weed out uncited material"). IMHO neither did the second keep vote, which also suggested a rename (but never explained how to rename this), and later agreed that a merge to Self-replicating machine is possible. The third keep argument presented decent sources for rewriting this from an unreferneced list of trivia into a stand-alone article, but did not present arguments for why we should keep this article that, in the list format (in all but a name), fails WP:LISTN (I don't believe anyone even quoted a single sentence from the article that is worth preserving). The fourth keep comment is a simple WP:KEEPER/WP:ITSNOTABLE. The last, fifth one, is subjective, arguably again confusing the fact that the topic is notable, from the fact that the execution (list of trivia) fails WP:IPC. I'll also add that a ton of identical articles have been recently deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smuggling in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIA in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles in popular culture (2nd nomination), etc. (see here for dozens of other examples of nearly identical lists of trivia, most ending in delete). I do not believe the closer is familiar with those cases, and it's a jarring inconsistency. Lastly, oh yeah, while NOTAVOTE, let's look at a tally: there were a total of 5 keep votes, and 9 delete ones (not counting my nomination, which would make 10). With 5 keeps (out of which, IMHO, three fail Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions), 10 deletes, closing this as no consensus a day after the last vote is IMHO not a best practice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Evidently a supervote ("potentially a notable topic"). Closer seems to not understand how NLIST works: the entries need to be discussed as a group, it's not about the verifiability of individual entries. He also ignored the argument that the article fails WP:NOTCATALOG. The best of the keep votes merely said that the content is verifiable. Avilich (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I rather agree with that last point and personally I find it persuasive. If I had been an AfD !voter I would have said "delete". But with my DRV reviewer hat on, I would contend that this view was not the consensus.—S Marshall T/C 12:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Specific examples, these were neither recently-created nor implausible. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
we have 2 relists, it was nominated for deletion and Fact Monster is not notable and should be deleted. But, the keep votes decided to notable and relist it, then relist on May 2022 and wrong, then try again to relisting, but closed as no consensus after 2 relists. 2001:448A:6000:482D:4C4F:3C22:D3F5:FB75 (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Davide Locatelli's page was in draft for two months and was subsequently approved for publication. After a while it was questioned and a debate with conflicting opinions opened up. I believe that the cancellation of the page is not justifiable, as it has come to a unanimous opinion. I also reiterate my opinion: in Italy Davide Locatelli is an established pianist, with the Sony label. Searching on Google (especially in the Italian results), the main Italian newspapers have written and are writing about him. He is doing a lot of things in America too. I, being the author of the page, am fully available to edit the content, add other sources that make the element more relevant, but I would like the deletion of the page to be restored. Thank you - Diegoferralis (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Editor IAmChaos deletes any PanaBIOS articles within seconds of posting. The article is about a seriously notable African COVID-Tech project/platform that is extensively researched and referenced. I have reviewed in great detail Wikipedia's policies and believe that IAmChaos has absolutely no grounds for these speedy deletions when he could not possibly have read the article within the timeframe that he/she has been deleting the articles. IAmChaos appears to be motivated by some perverse political or personal agenda against African-related subject matters that have absolutely no place on Wikipedia. The editorial decisions are rushed, reckless, and suspicious. They are clearly disruptive. We totally believe that PanaBIOS is an important project that deserves documentation on Wikipedia, having been covered extensively and connected with very notable actors in Africa and beyond. Quodprod (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Added independent reliable sources directly relevant to article topics for satisfying WP:GNG WarpingSpacetime (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Inappropriate close per WP:EARLY due to only being open for just over 24 hours, and per WP:BADNAC as a non-admin close where the result will require action by an administrator. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Wrong close. The consensus was weak delete and result would have been delete if a relist was made (second relist is mostly done in such cases). It is a biased and wrong move from admin to cause aspersions. If they think someone is a sock then surely file a SPI, but don't judge if something is not proven. I would like a relist so I can share my findings. 2A02:8108:4CBF:AE80:F875:1E6D:E013:D624 (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Involved NAC, discussion only open for 16 hours. Withdrawing an AfD and redirecting would have been acceptable and within process, but presuming that this action gives redirection the imprimatur of AfD is not. Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
DonaldD23 talk to me 03:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| ||
---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
Subject: Request for review of the deletion decision dated 26 April 2022 of Mr Sandstein- Case of Purshottam Lal Dear Reviewing Authority, (1) The Article on me - Purshottam Lal- created by Ms Sneha and approved by Wikipedia for publication on 27 January 2022 was deleted under the orders of Mr Sandstein ( herein after referred to as the deleting administrator , or DA in short) dated 26 April 2022 following a deletion discussion lasting 2 weeks. The final order said that there was lack of notability and not enough secondary sources. (2) Normally, the creator of the page-Ms Sneha-should have made the review petition. However, since she is blocked for reasons presumably nothing to do with the Article on me, she cannot communicate , and hence this review request by me. (3) As per advice on Wikipedia site , I first took up the matter with the DA and sent him a note on 20th May 2022 on his Talk Page. He very kindly responded and wrote : "Mr. Lal, consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purshottam Lal was that there is not enough significant coverage about you in reliable secondary sources that are independent of you. That is needed for an article about you. Could you please read our guideline page WP:BIO and then tell me what the three best pieces of such coverage about you are? Sandstein 17:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)" (4) Thus, in his response, he did not mention the " notability " aspect which was the main reason for deletion. (5) Since three independent References had been asked for and since most of my work as a writer and as a police officer had taken place in pre-internet era, I searched for feedback and comments of READERS of my articles in the print media since 1992 ( the year I started my writing endeavour ; more than 115 articles have since appeared in important newspapers, and four books published , all released by two different Governors of Punjab state ), and also newspaper reports of my work as a senior police officer , and after scanning them , sent the same to the DA on 25 May 2022 in PDF format, uploaded on Wikimedia. It , inter-alia, contained 31 feedbacks in respect of 20 articles of mine.( The link to these additiinal scanned References uploaded on Wikimedia is as follows: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ADDITIONAL_LINKS_DGPIPSLAL.pdf).
I had the impression that the Wikipedia's first efforts are to retain the Article by making improvement etc if possible. However, the DA finally replied on 26 May 2022 vide which he did not touch upon this aspect at all, and commented that the three most important References mentioned by me in the deleted Article were not sufficient to justify an Article on me. (6) I understand AfD (Article for Deletion )is concerned with the substance of the Article whereas DR ( Deletion Review ) is concerned with the process by which the decision was reached. (7) The following breaches of due process took place in my case which deserve consideration .
(B) Mr Bonadea started the deletion discussion on 11 April 2022. He later blocked IPA address of Ms Sneha, creator of the Article, for the so-called sock-puppeting . When she put her viewpoints - twice- during the discussion through her mobile data, Mr Bonadea blocked her mobile data connectivity, too. He also struck off posts so put by Ms Sneha. Thus, in this case an inevitable clash of interest took place leading to denial of the opportunity of being heard , by virtue of both actions - deletion discussion and blocking- having been initiated /ordered by the same party i.e. Mr Bonadea. This is against the principles of natural justice in any society/country governed by the rule of law. The blocking decision should not have been taken by Mr Bonadea as he knew that he had already initiated the deletion discussion. He ought to have referred the blocking decision to some other Administrator. Thus, due process of fairness and unprejudiced discussion have been violated in this case. (C ) At least two members who participated in the discussion majorly misread the Article. They presumed that I had been the Head of the Punjab Police Force. No such claim was made in the Article. It rather said in the Introduction : " ....retired from the rank of Director General of Police". Thus, it was the rank which was mentioned, and not the actual post. There are a few posts in the Punjab Police , all manned by DG rank officers. Though the two gentlemen spoke in my favour, yet their impression was wrong , and I pointed it out at the very first instance to Mr Geoffrey Lane of the Wikipedia in an email dated 28 April 2022 ) . Such a misreading by not only these two esteemed members of the WP community but by some other participants also- like the one inquiring about the President's Police Medal for Distinguished Service in respect of which clarification was provided by the creator of the Article ,the same , however,having been being struck off- shows lack of proper understanding and appreciation of the contents of the Article by some of the esteemed participants. The number of participants , most of them not well-informed about the Indian system of policing except two, was also too less, about 5 or 6. This type of discussion amounted to a process not germane to a meaningful discussion , laying too much stress on the so-called independent References which , though present among the list of References, were not found adequate by the participants and ultimately by the DA. Instead of looking at the totality of the material available , they rather looked only at a part of it resulting in miscarriage of justice. (D ) The DA's final note dated 26 May 2022 on his Talk Page says that the first two References mentioned speak of my book , and not of me. This is, to say the least, not a very correct interpretation. When somebody is talking about my book , he is naturally talking about me also as the book is my creation. About the third Reference, he mentioned it was by an organisation to which I belong and hence was not independent. First of all, he could not appreciate that the Reference was picked up by the creator by the internet search and mentioned as such just to show my qualities as a senior police officer , and referred to my past association with the organisation , and not the present one as I am no longer a member of it. Secondly, I was associated with it but had no control over it. The Reference also mentions the names of the former Governor Punjab and former Chief Secretary Punjab just to show that I was, at one time in the past, in the category of highly notable persons in the administration of the Punjab government , thereby supplementing my notability. (E ) The DA's final note dated 26 May 2022 is silent on the suggestion to allow, for improving the Article, the use of 31 feedbacks provided in respect of 20 articles of mine in PDF format uploaded on Wikimedia , as independent secondary sources for my writing work, which PDF file contained some References for my police work also ( all relating to pre-internet era). Perhaps these or some of them could have been considered for addition so that the Article could have been improved and saved , as I understand that the first endeavour of the Wikipedia , as a positive step, is to retain the Article by improving it. Pre-internet References would naturally be in paper format, and only their scanned copies can be attached. Some 58 References ( out of which some might be common to the list already in the deleted Article) also sent for my articles and TV discusdions for possible use in improving the Article were also not touched upon by the DA in his final note of 26 May 2022. ( Please see the link and list of scanned References and other 58 in paragraph (5) above). (F ) The Article was approved on 27 January 2022 by Wikipedia ( Mr John B 123- more than 1,89,000 edits and more than 248 active Articles to his credit) after satisfying about notability and References. No new facts came to light after that. No falsity of any information was ever alleged. Hence, in the absence of any fresh material, it is not fair to declare the same Article as ineligble on grounds of lack of notability and inadequacy of References, though later the DA in his note of 20 May 2022 on his Talk Page did not raise the issue of notability , and only of secondary independent References. Thus , there has been an apparent lack of consistency . I think an Article duly approved by an esteemed and experienced Wikipedian-Administrator should not be put up for deletion discussion unless fresh damaging material became available. (G ) I have suffered loss of face by the deletion effected 3 months after its publication after due approval . I am now more than 75 years of age. My endeavour to write the fifth book- Origin of the Aryans- which was half-way through, is stalled due to this upsetting development. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, it is requested that the Article may kindly be restored. It can, however, be improved by adding more References or even amending it.
Yours sincerely, Purshottam Lal Sukhmanik95 (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
| ||
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The keep arguments are remarkably weak and sheer numbers don't make up for that. They sum up to claim that this is inherently notable ("a list of ... is notable") or that notability of the people in it is sufficient (it is not, per both WP:LISTN and WP:NINHERITED) or that it is useful... In contrast, the delete side correctly argued that no source discussing this as a group exists - and even the sources presented in the AfD do not deal at all with the group of "people on the postage stamps of Iceland" but are merely general philatelical works about the postage stamps. In the face of the lack of policy-compliant reasons to keep (and the fact this does fail WP:NOT, as I have argued for similar lists elsewhere); this should be overturned to delete. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |