Balthier (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I closed this AfD as "merge". However, a number of people objected to this as a result, so I suggested self-overturning as "no consensus". (See User talk:Ritchie333#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balthier) That doesn't seem to be a possible since another editor has already implemented the merge as suggested. So I'm bringing discussion here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I'm down with undoing if you want. I felt it was controversial personally, but I didn't see a direct object so assumed bookkeeping was needed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:I'm fine with it resulting as a "no consensus" as a nominator for afd. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really know what we're supposed to be reviewing here. It appears there were two options to close that AfD: Merge or no consensus, and I think the merges had the stronger argument. SportingFlyer T·C 15:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep was a third valid option. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  With all due respect, I don't think there's any possible way keep was a valid option for this AfD unless you purely count votes. The closest argument to notability that any keep !voter made was yourself, when you said that interviews with an author about a character contribute to notability. That's a debatable point, but the merge !voters came up with comprehensive reasons as to why this should not be kept as a stand-alone article, and no keep !voters did apart from implying it was fine. I don't personally have any problem with a negotiated post-close no consensus, but this was absolutely correctly decided. SportingFlyer T·C 22:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ties go to keep. Per WP:DGFA When in doubt, don't delete. The way I interpret that in a split decision between keep or merge is the status quo wins and the article is retained. Jclemens (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I know you're involved, but I'm disappointed in your response considering we mostly interact here at Deletion Review. As I noted, there was no doubt in that discussion unless you vote count. SportingFlyer T·C 11:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Remember, I am a GAR-before-AfD proponent: I view the entire discussion as out of process. Moreover, I think I'm talking myself into advocating GA as evidence of notability independent of the GNG: If there's enough coverage in toto to write a legitimate GA about a topic, the GNG and relevant SNGs are moot, as the finished article is evidence of its own propriety. While it may seem like I'm a rules encyclopedia, all of that is in service to writing a better encyclopedia, and pedantic notability disputes over articles that read well enough to pass GA bother me. Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  “Keep” is a strong contender if one reads “merge” !votes as a flavour of “keep”. I read the first “merge” !vote as leaning “redirect”, the second as leaning “keep”, and the third as “keep but stubify”.

  I read a consensus that the article is REFBOMBED, but AfD is not the answer to REFBOMBing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think merge votes are a flavour of keep. Keep means "keep as a stand-alone article" and merge means "delete as a stand-alone article, but preserve the information in the article somewhere." There's a crystal clear consensus to keep the information in the article, and there's also a softer consensus to remove the article as a stand-alone page, because those arguing to merge have stronger arguments it should not be a stand-alone title. AfDs can indeed be merge discussions, if merge is the correct outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, but some can read a merge !vote as a “keep, if the merge is rejected at the target article”. AfD is not good for merges. Indeed, WP:ATD-M is a policy reason to speedy close an AfD if it heads towards a merge. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fair, but it's still clear to me none of those supporting merge in this discussion were voting to keep the article as a standalone page. SportingFlyer T·C 10:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus based on above comments from the AFD closer. Closing as either merge or no consensus would have been viable options; I think the merge voters had a slightly better case than keep voters, but both sides had solid policy-based reasoning. Frank Anchor 17:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Thanks again for opening this. My (involved) read on the discussion is that the 'keep' side believed that the included reliable sources in the article establish notability and the 'merge' side did not. This is an irreconcilable difference of opinion that can only really result in NC, given that the discussion was evenly divided. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• To criticise the closing statement, it describes a no consensus, but then spins a case of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, as if none of “keep”, “delete” or “merge” held consensus, and “merge” is the least worst. However, NOGOODOPTIONS requires consensus that the status quo is rejected, which is not how AfD works. There was “no consensus”, which defaults to keep. However, rather than “overturn”, I suggest rewording ”A merge seems the most appropriate compromise” to ”There is no consensus to delete, but this discussion should be continued as a talk page proposal to merge”.
  Even if there were a rough consensus to merge, AfD cannot force a merge. AfD can “Redirect with possibility of merging from the history”, but if involved editors do not cooperate to do the merge, the AfD closer cannot force it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Searching the references for WP:GNG compliant sources, I find none of the first 27 are independent. Some don’t even mention the topic. The 28th reference appears good, but fails WP:100W (a very low bar, 100 words of coverage). I recommend WP:RENOM, and a better nomination argument for “redirect”, if a talk page discussion on merging doesn’t find consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources for the section covering Reception look good, but they are too brief. I think it should be transwiki-merged to https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Balthier, and cut back to paragraphs containing independently sourced content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My sense given my experience editing in this topic area is that the article passes WP:NEXIST but folks were too busy to do an extensive source search on the spot, given that the nominator had also nominated a dozen+ other video game character articles for AFD and GAR in the same short time frame (including a double whammy AFD+GAR for this particular article). Thus, people on the 'keep' side were short in their assertions and didn't revisit to rebut responses. Regardless, I think the sources exist and will take time to find. A NC result will allow that time to improve the article (which has since survived GAR). Axem Titanium (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Implying the people who !voted did not do an "indepth" search due to time constraints or voted frivolously (in essence being "bad faith deletionists") is a major assertion deployed with no evidence. You'd think that with the combined efforts of everyone who participated, something substantial would be found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus - per Axem above. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No action. AFDs ultimately come down to keep or not-keep; variations between the different flavours of not-keep can be discussed on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant to write "delete or not-delete" but everyone seems to know what I meant anyway. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think no consensus is a better close than merge. The merge arguments were a bit stronger in that they focused more on the specifics of the sourcing, but I don't think it's quite enough to push the debate to their side. Contrary to what the closing statement says there was essentially no support for deletion at all. Hut 8.5 19:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The merge !votes were stronger. Commentary on the topic from the creator of the topic is obviously neither independent nor secondary (The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it), so arguments claiming those interviews contributed to notability should have been discarded. Additionally, the article being a GA is utterly meaningless as GAs are not a consensus outcome and the GA criteria do not actually address notability directly. JoelleJay (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Reclose or whatever. Though I'd lean towards agreeing with Stifle and disagreeing with Jclemens here, any of the closes mentioned is fine. Since AfD isn't the preferred place for a merge/split discussion, it can carry on elsewhere. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (Keep). There were no !votes to “delete”. The nomination was weak, was not a valid “delete” rationale, and the nominator failed to follow WP:BEFORE. It should have been a speedy keep WP:SK#1. The AfD closer erred in entertaining a merge proposal at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn / no consensus (involved, voted keep in original AFD). The original close didn't appear to come from a close reading of the situation and was since self-reverted as noted, and at least one of the merge votes was rather weak IMO. On a strict votecount basis it was even, and I don't feel that the pro-merge side identified issues that would mandate a merge, and I of course disagree with JoelleJay that the keep votes were somehow weak (being a keep voter myself). To be sure, the article is somewhat borderline, but as a Keep voter, I was certainly sold that the sourcing is reliable and not trivial or passing mentions. SnowFire (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. No Consensus would also have been valid. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Per WP:NOTAVOTE. Admins are expected to close on the merits, not on sheer number of people voting a certain way. The keep rationales did not present any hard evidence that the article was notable, and were refuted in depth. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as an involved editor. As ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ stated, AFD discussions are not a vote, and the closer is meant to come to a decision based on what they consider to be the strengths of the actual arguments. In a case like this, where the "votes" are fairly even but they felt that the arguments for Merging were stronger, closing as a Merge is a perfectly valid decision. And, quite frankly, I agree. Those advocating Keep did not attempt to refute the arguments from myself and the other proponents for Merging based on the general weakness of the sourcing and lack of significant coverage, and did not attempt to present any new sources or any real arguments as to why the current sources could be considered significant coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per JoelleJay. The "keep" arguments were eviscerated and there was no attempt to engage with Rorshacma's thorough textual analysis. A "no consensus" close based on vote counting could have been forgiven but not excused (AfD is not a vote). The most appropriate close, as was performed, incorporates the relative weaknesses of multiple "keep" positions and the strength of their rebuttals. czar 05:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No consensus, though leaning towards merge considering how little is actually there. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Opinion about the subject's notability and quality of article content was clearly divided throughout the AfD process, and it certainly still is the case here with this deletion review. Contrary to the representations by some of the editors present, a merge vote (and their rationales for endorsing the merge) is not stronger then the keep votes. As SnowFire pointed out, the pro-merge side have not identified issues that would mandate a merge. There's nothing precluding a proper merge discussion from taking place in the talk page. A no consensus close is still a valid result, and Alpha303 is right in pointing out that AfD isn't the preferred place for a merge/split discussion, it can certainly carry on elsewhere like in the talk page. Haleth (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I didn't explicitly endorse the merge above, which is the better result here. SportingFlyer T·C 11:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per arguments above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. All keep !votes incorrectly present trivial coverage as significant coverage or present non-independent primary sources as independent secondary sources. Note that the GA process does not check for notability or secondary sources—merely that the most basic aspects of the subject are covered in the article and that the sources meet the bare minimum of WP:RS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zaan Khan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Please review the deletion of Zaan Khan. It was deleted back in 2021 because the actor played only minor roles. But now, all the issues have been addressed which lead to deletion of the article of Zaan Khan back in 2021 as Zaan Khan meets the WP:NACTOR criteria. He has played lead roles and prominent roles in multiple television shows, starting with Hamari Bahu Silk, then in Kyun Utthe Dil Chhod Aaye for nearly two years following which very recently in 2023 he played a significant role in Maitree. At present, he is playing a significant role in Meri Saas Bhoot Hai. The deleted article can be enhanced with good sources that support these significant roles as well as the other roles he has played. Furthermore, the article includes some basic details about his personal life. Please review the afd and restore the deleted article to main or draft space. 59.95.163.248 (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation (which does not need DRV approval since it does not appear the title was WP:SALTed). The appellant can simply start a new page from scratch. A request to restore the original page's history to article space or draft space can be made at WP:REFUND. I will note that "delete" was the correct result at the time of the AFD (unanimous consensus to delete) but a lot can change over two years. Frank Anchor 12:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:@Frank Anchor: We want a restoration of the previous article so that we can get a base for creating the article in mainspace.

  Can you please restore the article, we assure that we will work on it ans add resources to

make it a good Wikipedia article 117.193.244.140 (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not an administrator, so I can not restore articles. As suggested above, requests to restore articles can be made at WP:REFUND. Frank Anchor 13:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly there was basically nothing in the deleted article. The version deleted by the last AfD had two sentences of prose and merely said that he was an actor and listed some films/TV series he's appeared in, which will be different now anyway (only half the roles the OP mentioned were included). The version deleted by the first AfD was similar except it also included a date and place of birth, but it didn't cite a source for that so we probably shouldn't include it either. You might as well start again. Hut 8.5 17:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article had been created by a now blocked editor and worked on by their socks. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: The draft was what I was talking about, not the mainspace article. IP at REFUND requested restoration of the draft, but pointed to this DRV. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse if this is an appeal of the previous closure. If the appellant is asking for the deleted article to be refunded, I don't know why editors ask to have articles that were deleted for lack of notability refunded. Why is it helpful to start with the deleted article rather than starting fresh? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]