List of people on the postage stamps of Iceland – No consensus, relisted. Opinions are divided about whether the "keep" closure was correct or whetther the AfD should have been closed as "delete". This means we have no consensus. in such circumstances, the DRV closer can choose to relist the AfD. I'm doing so here because the DRV is longer than the AfD, which indicates that there might be more discussion to be had at AfD. Sandstein 09:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - The number of !votes for and against are similar, and the Delete reasoning is stronger but not overwhelming. It looks like No Consensus (which of course keeps the article for a little while). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this topic is cut-and-dried enough to be able to clearly say if LISTN is met or not. I think NC is a better reading of the discussion, but I have to endorse a keep closure as being within discretion--the numbers are toward keep, the strength of arguments, IMO, toward deletion. How to weigh those is tough, but given how strong the numbers are, I think keep is fine. That said, I'd say the best way forward is some kind of an RfC on the general topic of these "people on stamp" lists and see if we can't agree on if (and when) we should have them or if we should never have them, or what. Hobit (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the numbers are towards keep but the strength of argument is towards delete; then the proper outcome is either "delete" or "no consensus" (depending on how strong the arguments are); but certainly not "keep". Discussions are not votes, and half a dozen people repeating the same fallacy or reasoning which is at odds with wider policy does not make that reasoning suddenly be stronger. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A) of course discussions aren't votes, but numbers do matter. WP:IAR is policy. If 99 people say "keep, Wikipedia should have this" and 1 person says "but per <guideline> we should not", we keep. There are policies like BLP and copyright that are non-negotiable. This isn't that. See [1] for a great example of something that met every inclusion guideline but got deleted due to numbers. B) This case isn't cut-and-dried. It's quite unclear if LISTN requires this to be deleted. As I said, I think NC would have been a better close. But keep is well within discretion IMO. The closer isn't clearly wrong to think the delete arguments are weak. Hobit (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's look at the "strength" of the keep arguments, in order:
I feel the list is useful, [...] as a useful indicator of possible wp:notables with redlinks needing pages
the people listed here, seem to be important people in Icelandic history and arts
A list of historically significant people who have appeared on the postage stamps of a country is notable
per discussion, would be surely kept if it was a larger nation
the rationale is basically the same as for List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands
No. 2 and 3 entirely miss the point because notability is not inherited and the subject under discussion was not the notability of the people listed, but that of the group. They should have been dismissed as fallacies of relevance. No. 4 and 5 are a WP:WHATABOUTX argument which don't even attempt to address the specifics. They should similarly have been dismissed out of hand. That leaves 1, which at least provides a plausible claim why it could be useful.
The delete arguments, on the other hand, are that:
(nom) Fails LISTN. [...] Sourced to a general catalogue and the homepage of a stamp dealer for some reason. (i.e. sources available don't qualify as SIGCOV)
the sourcing is not enough to show this topic has been covered adequately as a whole to justify a list (i.e. another editor agreeing with the LISTN assessment)
very little sourcing or verifiability (so fails both LISTN and WP:V)
I don't know in which world a 5-3 split (more like 1-3 once arguments which are not relevant are dismissed) with arguments so clearly stronger on the delete side can be closed as "keep". If you are saying that sufficient numbers can always outweigh policy, then we might as well get rid of NOTAVOTE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One mistake I made is that I counted it as 6-2 somehow. I have no idea how (2 I assume because I dropped the nom, 6 I've no clue on). So yeah, keep is more of a stretch. An I do think you are underplaying the NPOV argument that was made explicitly by one person and implicitly by the rest. We do try to include places where sourcing can be harder to find on a given topic if places where sourcing in English is plentiful on the theory that the sourcing does likely exist, we just can't find it. So the numbers are closer than I thought, but the arguments are nowhere near as far apart IMO as you have them. But at the end of the day this feels like a reasonable topic for us to have and the !voters (and the closer?) reached that conclusion. This isn't promotional or anything else problematic, and it does seem like a notable (using the dictionary definition, not Wikipedia's) topic. I feel it's a topic our guidelines don't address well. YMMV (and clearly does). Hobit (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I did post an RfC [2] to the philately portal several weeks ago, and the first response is only dated today. So we're not getting much guidance from that quarter so far. In looking at other lists of people, I found List of people on banknotes and even the FL(!) List of people on United States banknotes, which are very nicely done but also raises a question as to why banknote appearances are intrinsically notable but postage stamp appearances are not? They are sibling categories of paper ephemera after all. (If this observation starts a new flurry of deletions, uh, sorry numismatists :-) ) Stan (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. P&G-backed arguments should always outweigh arguments that are explicitly rejected by P&Gs. Not a single source was produced to support the repeated claim that the topic was GNG-notable as a topic -- keep !voters didn't even attempt to rebut the correct assessment that the list failed LISTN and NOT. Closers should not be afraid to close against a numerical majority if that majority is clearly completely unfamiliar with our guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE. This failure invalidates any consensus to delete, and usually makes for a messy discussion for “keep” !voters who recognise encyclopedic information but find themselves unable to articulate why. The page is presented unsuitably, and a good answer is Merge and Redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland. The List of People is properly part of Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland, possibly with a rename, and then, it could be a suitable spinout. However, the current page is not couched as a spinout of Icelandic stamps. There are many possible fixes that don’t involve deletion, and the poor BEFORE-failing nomination domed the discussion to a messy failure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for “keep” !voters who recognise encyclopedic information - whether something is encyclopedic or not is not generally based on whether individual Wikipedia editors think so, but what wider guidelines and policy (WP:NOT, in this case) say and how reliable sources have covered the subject. There are many possible fixes that don’t involve deletion No such fix was presented at the discussion; nor do I personally see any such fix for something that fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTN so obviously. There are some things which just don't go on Wikipedia. The rest of your argument seems to be relitigating of the discussion and is off-topic here RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The failure to properly consider BEFORE options is a critical failure in the AfD and is a reason it can’t be overturned to delete, and should be more widely considered a reason for a speedy close. The merge and redirect option is on the table and until removed, talk of deletion is premature. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is a difference of judgement (which is why we have AfDs so people can argue these), not a "failure to properly consider BEFORE options". I do not share your opinion that this kind of content belongs on any Wikipedia page, per the WP:NOT arguments I have made elsewhere. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to continue this line of argument; as it has no bearing on whether the close was correct in light of the discussion which actually happened at the AfD. This is something which could (should?) have been discussed at the AfD. DRV is not AfD-relitigation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating WP:NOT as if it is a reason for deletion. It often doesn’t. Also, I am not finding WP:NOT arguments in the AfD. “Not” is not a good search term, it has 56 matches.
In contrast, ATD is policy directly speaking to, and limiting deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Below, you raised NOTBUREAU. That demanded a response that there is substance to the question of a merge, and indeed there obviously is. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn None of the keep voters made any policy-based arguments. The complaint that the nomiator failed BEFORE is nonsense, since not only is there no evidence that this is true, but also BEFORE doesn't require that ATDs be stated out loud, only that the nominator give serious thought to it. In any case, a reason for deleting is itself a reason for not ATDing, and no convincing case for the latter was made. If keep voters "find themselves unable to articulate why" the article is encyclopedic, that tells everything. Avilich (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ATD was mentioned by John Pack Lambert, 15:58, 25 May 2022. It obviously needed consideration. Your concept of nonsense is nonsense. You want to pretend that the nominator did BEFORE, satisfied BEFORE, but then kept it silent? That would not be acceptable, that means the nominator deliberately misled the AfD. That invalidates the AfD, and the nominator requires a TROUT. The ATD was obvious, but the flawed nomination undermined a fair discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being of the opinion that a merge is not appropriate (for example, in this instance, because the content fails WP:NOT) is not "failure to properly consider BEFORE or ATD". Nominators are in no way required to argue for options they personally disagree with. That invalidates the AfD, and the nominator requires a TROUT. - utter nonsense. Even if you were right about your bureaucratic instruction creep, WP:NOTBURO is rather darn clear that A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The process failed, with blame to the nominator, because the content should be merged, not deleted, per WP:Deletion policy. That trumps your NOTBUREAU argument and devaluing of AfD instructions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much what you said: nobody likes thought policing, most people don't feel the need to question whether a nominator has done BEFORE unless sources are easily and obviously available, and most nominations don't give explicit, detailed BEFORE reports anyway. The fact that the nominator has a good record, that similar lists have been deleted in the past couple of days, and that none of the keep votes were well-articulated (by your own admission), suggest that the nomination is as good as if a BEFORE had been done (and I'm happy to pretend it has). You're right that more 'consideration' was needed, but for the discussion as a whole rather than just for John Pack Lambert's afterthought of a redirect. Avilich (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where do our P&Gs require a nominator explicitly describe their BEFORE search? None of the keep !votes demonstrated the topic had received SIGCOV -- they just kept claiming a list containing notable subjects is inherently notable as a group -- so there's no evidence that aspect of BEFORE wasn't performed. And it's not like there's much that could be merged into postage stamps and postal history of Iceland, we would basically be copy-pasting an incomplete, undersourced collection of names and partial sentences into the article without any context. JoelleJay (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of BEFORE failure is the non mention of the obvious WP:ATD-M possibility.
The nominator, User:Fram is a well-known respected experienced editor, and this makes the BEFORE failure much worse. Even you invent against evidence that Fram actually did a silent BEFORE. This is a very good example of how a nominators BEFORE failure poisons the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the merge may well discard some of the content, but not all. People featured on historical stamps looks like missing content at the merge target. You say unsourced, but it is also unlikely to be challenged. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are attempting to relitigate the AfD by suggesting a merge. I do not think it is an obvious (or even a reasonable) possibility in this case, but DRV is not the proper forum for that. Stop with all of this BEFORE nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You call an expectation to follow AfD instructions to be nonsense? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nonsense is you trying to impose your opinion that this should be merged as a BEFORE failure, when it very much isn't. There are valid reasons for deletion (ones which IMHO mean this content is not suitable for Wikipedia, anywhere); you disagreeing with them does not make them invalid or mean that the nom failed to do BEFORE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not “merged”. “Consideration of merge”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the closer gave a bit too much weight to the keep !votes here: RandomCanadian does a pretty good job of explaining why several of them are fallacious or at odds with policy. I think the best option here would be to relist in the hope of getting some more policy-based input, as well as to allow for further discussion of the ATD that was suggested (a merge/redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep closure. Postage Stamps are works of art, instruments of currency, and government publications all rolled into one. To delete, rather than redirect, requires a lot more cogent arguments than what were presented in the discussion. No objection to a merge discussion on the talk pages, or a BOLD merge, but to pretend that a delete outcome is justified by the discussion here is unreasonable, and there's no particular benefit to overturning a reasonable keep closure into a borderline no consensus. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Postage Stamps are works of art, instruments of currency, and government publications all rolled into one." is A) not an argument for DRV but for AfD; B) would be a bad argument even at AfD; as the page under discussion was not "Postage stamps of Iceland" but specifically "List of people on the postage stamps of Iceland". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider the content worth merging, and it wouldn´t make a good redirect, so my preference was and is for deletion, just like happened with dozens of the other country lists already. No idea why people who disagree need to see the nom trouted as if I made some terrible faux-pas here, or why this would be important for a DRV. If the merge was such an obvious ATD, one would imagine that it would have rapidly gained strenght at the Afd. Fram (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you follow WP:BEFORE? Do you not believe in it? Do you not believe in naming the best merge target and explaining, or even just asserting, that none of the content is suitable there? You may have solid reasons, but by mentioning it you entice others to check, and explicitly agree. It’s not “terrible”, but I have seen a lot of AfDs brought here, where I deduce that a (not “the”) root cause was a WP:BEFORE failure. Following WP:BEFORE, naming then dismissing at least one merge target, correlates to more successful discussion. I am sure that had you named and rejected the merge target, the discussion would have found a clearer consensus more quickly. I think a little more time reporting on your BEFORE process would mean saving a lot of other editors time at AfD and DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it’s worth, I think the article falls way short of being worth a standalone article, but I do believe the content is worth using at the target, although a substantial amount of work is needed, and it would need someone seriously interested in Icelandic stamps. Mostly, it contains seed information, and sources, to get started. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't usually discuss all things which don't apply, I think about things like redirecting but I try to keep the nom reasonably concise. Not mentioning that you thought about but rejected merging, redirecting, ... is hardly a Before failure, never mind troutworthy or a reason to dismiss an Afd. Let's not add even more burocracy to our processes. Fram (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think your view is a mistake. Notability (including LISTN) is only a deletion reason if there is no merge target. WP:ATD-M is deletion policy. WP:BEFORE is a very clear instruction. Did you do WP:BEFORE, consider, and reject, the merge target raised in the discussion? The bureaucracy is already written into the process, and it is good policy. List of people on the postage stamps of the United States seems ok, but for Iceland, they are not even worth a mention on any page? Is the US special. To resist bias, things should be done properly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember ever seeing a nomination statement include the nom's rejected considerations for merge targets. Merging is actually an extremely rare deletion outcome overall in the areas I participate in -- in my last 500 AfDs only two resulted in a merge. Just because you believe noms should explicitly outline their BEFORE procedure (which I agree would be ideal) doesn't mean it's required or even common enough to be expected. JoelleJay (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s rarely seen because if there is a merge target, it gets merged, or redirected for someone else to merge, and it doesn’t go to AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very rarely do I wish Wikipedia had a "thumbs up" tag built in. Hobit (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse "keep" though I might have preferred "no consensus". Too often our P&Gs don't quite say what they are assumed to say. Although WP:LISTN is part of Wikipedia:Notability which says article topics should be, as a whole, "notable", WP:LISTN seems to relax this a bit by saying "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ...". What are the other reasons? In the present case the cross classification criterion comes into consideration where the guideline says there is no present consensus. However the present list topic could reasonably be considered as an intersection of just two notable topics: (1) Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland and (2) Portrait. Such a simple cross classification by notable criteria is least likely to offend WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The AFD closer was correct not to discount the opinions of those !voting "keep". Thincat (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a simple cross classification by notable criteria - The criteria being individually notable does not mean a cross-categorisation is acceptable (WP:NINHERITED). Something is not notable if it hasn't been discussed in sources. Individual Wikipedians thinking something is notable has never been a suitable reason to keep anything at AfD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I didn't expect you to voice your agreement. WP:LISTN is simply a guideline and you are not required to support the way it is worded or what it implies. Also, by the way, no one at AFD or here has argued in favour of WP:NINHERITED so it should not be necessary to keep saying it is an argument to avoid. Thincat (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You literally just made the argument that this is "an intersection of just two notable topics"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have closed no consensus, but overturning from keep to no consensus is process wonkery. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are the rationales from all the keep votes:
"the people listed here, seem to be important people in Icelandic history and arts." - A list of notable people is not the same as the list itself representing a notable collective gorup.
"A list of historically significant people who have appeared on the postage stamps of a country is notable" - According to what policy?
"per discussion, would be surely kept if it was a larger nation" - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
"the rationale is basically the same as for List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands, which recently survived AfD" - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
There is zero policy-based reasoning behind the keep votes. When did AfD closers decide that policy-based reasoning doesn't matter at all? They've turned WP:NOTVOTE into a lie. If this is going to be the norm, could we please just turn WP:ILIKEIT into a valid criteria notability and go ahead and destroy the encyclopedia? That seems to be all that matters these days, because of the refusal to actually read and consider discussion votes by the closers. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete relist. Zero policy(or guideline)- based keep reasons, policy-based deletion reasons. That's a textbook example of WP:DISCARD.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one even invoked WP:ATD. If you ARE invoking ATD then the fate of the article, unless the matter is improvement, and improvement was not a keep reason, should NOT be "keep". Lurking shadow (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The invocation of ATD-M is mandated by WP:BEFORE instructions and explicitly by deletion policy. The obvious merge target is there. The failure to consider was a process failure. You are !voting to perpetuate the failure by going for “delete” with no evidence you have considered ATD.
I am not arguing for “keep”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, your thought policing has no basis in policy. ATD does not force anybody to talk about a merger if they disagree with it. You can't force participants to discuss something they don't find worth discussing: if nobody found about your 'obvious' merge target worthy of attention, then there is simply no support or consensus for it. Avilich (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably why SmokeyJoe wants to overturn and relist instead of overturn and merge. A good idea.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but the argument that the nom failed BEFORE cannot be used to support it. Avilich (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support a relist, especially if anyone disputes the redirect option, or if anyone really believes that all of the content is unsuitable of inclusion anywhere. I don’t support the closing statement. Alternatively, an editor could boldly redirect. It would be nice if someone would start adding notable people featured on stamps at the redirect target. This is then no longer a deletion matter.
I asked the nom if they did BEFORE and they didn’t answer, and so I presume the answer is “no”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Smokeyjoe, you have long gone from raising an objection into the territory of bludgeoning personal attacks. I have answered multiple time already, e.g. "No, I don't usually discuss all things which don't apply, I think about things like redirecting but I try to keep the nom reasonably concise. Not mentioning that you thought about but rejected merging, redirecting, ... is hardly a Before failure, never mind troutworthy or a reason to dismiss an Afd. " Please stop. Fram (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where is ATD "explicitly" mandated by policy? WP:DELETION policy just lists alternatives, it most certainly doesn't demand an AfD nom consider and reject each one. The WP:deletion process guideline also makes no mention of ensuring ATD has been considered. WP:N only "strongly encourages" noms do a BEFORE. In fact, I don't see a single policy or guideline that requires any of what you're claiming @Fram "failed" to do. JoelleJay (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“If editing can be done to improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page”. Converting the page to a suitable redirect is an edit that improves the page.
I think some of the material can be merged, although some work will be needed at the target page.
WP:BEFORE #C4 instructs the nominator to consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. Did they do this?
The usual practice is to ignore ATD when there is no suitable redirect target. This is the problem. AfD participants can read the nomination as implying no suitable redirect target, and yet there is one.
WP:N is only a deletion reason when there is no suitable merge target, or redirect target.
Fram did not mention the suitable merge target. Fram failed to do this. Fram didn’t do this. Maybe one wording is better than another. The discussion would have been better if the “keep” voters addressed the possibility of merging instead of asserting notability. Notability doesn’t mean that the topic must have a standalone article.
Has Fram, or anyone else, argued that the material is entirely unsuitable at the proposed target? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the material is suitable at the proposed target either, or else you would need to include a list of all topics ever shown on the stamps of Iceland, not just people (as there is no reason to single out people over buildings, events, plants, ...). The list would be undue at the merge target, would add no understanding of the topic, basically just isn't suited for it. I don't think the material belongs on enwiki, not as a standalone article and not as part of another article. Can you please stop with the "nom failed this" and "nom failed that" nonsense when you try to fnd excuses for the poor "keep" votes? I answered you before, but you simply ignore the answers because it is much more fun to blame the nom for the failure of the keeps somehow. Fram (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you, or anyone else, argued at the afd that editing could have been done to improve the page? —Cryptic 06:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve made a few failed starts to assess the quality of sourced material, but refs #1&3 are newspaper images in Icelandic. Reference #2 directly discusses a President featured on a stamp, and so I think it worthy of mention at the parent article. Ref 4 is an image of an Icelandic book. There is stuff here worth merging. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reusing references doesn't require a merge, merging is for content. Perhaps this is useful for the supposed merge target, perhaps not, but it doesn't require a merge or redirect, it doesn't require keeping the attribution. If you or anyone wants to get the references used in a deleted article, you can ask any admin (or at refund) and they will normally provide these. But we don't keep articles because the references may be useful for another article. Fram (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all recommendations on the AfD info page, though, not from any policy or guideline. So the claim that doing BEFORE or considering ATD is "mandated" by policy is false, and therefore Fram's nomination was not out-of-process whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No policy-compliant arguments to keep this material were raised at the afd. The bludgeoning above that those advocating for deletion of the article should have proactively argued better against positions nobody held is ludicrous. Overturn to delete. —Cryptic 08:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. The rationale for the AFD was that the list fails WP:LISTN. No counterargument was made to that whatsoever, and the "keep" votes can basically be boiled down to either WP:ILIKEIT, or a misunderstanding of what makes a list notable. To be clear it is not the individual notability of the individuals listed which is relevant, but the concept of listing these people in the first place. When viewed through the lens of our policies and guidelines, this discussion shows a very clear consensus to delete and that's the way the closer should have closed it, irrespective of the repetition of arguments we see above in this DRV. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The discussion contains literally no policy-based rationale for deletion. Even the nom only gestures vaguely in the direction of WP:LISTN, which simply describes "[o]ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable", and thus does not provide a basis for deletion. The guideline is written that way because there is no consensus that it should be stronger. If the proponents of deletion wanted to argue that we should ignore the plain lack of policy authority for deletion and nonetheless delete a cromulent list because doing so would serve the broader interests of the encyclopedia, they needed to use their words and actually make that argument. They didn't, and the closer properly discounted their unreasoned !votes to delete. (That may not be the exact process the closer followed, but since they reached the correct result in any case, it doesn't matter). -- Visviva (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misapplying WP:LISTN. "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines." It is correct that it doesn't say that it is the only way for a list topic to be considered notable, but... if you want to keep an article you have to prove notability. If you have an alternate reason for notability you need to make a case for notability. And one that fits our policies. However, the arguments here boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSNOTABLE or original research not backed up by sources. If I'd have seen credible arguments for meeting WP:GNG, that'd be different. Lurking shadow (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm not convinced that a good faith attempt at sourcing this list or finding RS relevant to this list per WP:BEFORE was attempted by the nominator and the delete voters. No one mentioned searching for sources and coming up empty. They only commented on the current state of the article, which to my mind is not convincing enough of an argument. As such, I'm not inclined to overturn this AFD.4meter4 (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion, User:Fram says: "Because there are no sources that treat the topic as a group?" This indicates a WP:BEFORE search. Lurking shadow (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s too vague of a comment to assume that was what was meant. It could have easily been limited to an evaluation of the sources in the article, which is how I initially read it. I still think that the comment was evaluation of the cited references extent in the article, and no more than that even after re-reading. It’s up to the delete voters to make it clear that they looked for sources and followed due diligence. I am still not seeing that in evidence anywhere.4meter4 (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but a WP:BEFORE search does not need to be really proven in any case. You can normally assume that the nominator made one, and if several keep votes don't dispute that there are no acceptable sources then there is consensus that there aren't any.13:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
That has not been my experience with this particular nominator in other AFDs.4meter4 (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.