I was not part of the initial discussion which decided that this article should be deleted and redirected to 2022 California's 17th State Assembly district special election, but I contend that, in light of the continuing (reputable) media coverage of Mr. Mahmood from this March, April, May, and June alongside the existingreferences to him around Wikipedia, the stand-alone article should be un-deleted. I do not have any affiliation to Mr. Mahmood or any investment in the SF politics surrounding him, but I think there is a clear enough interest in him to mandate restoration of the eponymous article.
Closing admin comment aware of this request and fine with whatever consensus determines if factors have changed which render my close moot. It does not appear that @FlamingMoth is questioning the close at the time, and as such and because my on wiki time is still somewhat limited for another few days, I'm not re-assessing my close. Please ping me if that becomes necessary. Thanks!
Moot As a non-protected redirect, any editor is welcome to un-redirect and add sufficient coverage demonstrating ongoing notability at any time without DRV intervention. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moot per Jclemens. Stifle (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced the new articles get him to WP:GNG, but he's clearly received some media coverage separate from being a political candidate. I'm not sure I'd restore the old article, but there's no reason a new article can't be created and AfD'd if necessary. SportingFlyerT·C 09:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Just because someone can un-redirect a title as a starting point, doesn't mean they have to. I'm sure folks can think of several instances where starting from scratch would yield a much better article. Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moot per Jclemens. —Alalch E. 17:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Nominator wrote out the reasons on the nom. Image for those with an Indigenous identity (Two Spirit) was flagged as inappropriate by member in good standing of the Indigenous wikiproject. New image has been created by users from the communities in question to replace it, and is now hosted at the Indigenous Wikiproject. There was no more reason for the inaccurate, considered offensive by some, image (that was invented by someone on tumblr), so I deleted it per nom. - CorbieVreccan☊☼ 19:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a relatively long discussion on my talk page about this. Their disruptive editing allegations are quite unfounded and based on a total of two reverted edits I consider to be good faith but incorrect and an edit war which ended with consensus on my side. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(←) The image was an inaccurate portrayal which was supposed to represent the Two-Spirit community. The image they chose to use was made by a random person on Tumblr and is not in use by the 2S community at large. I am not sure why @Immanuelle doesn't understand that it is inappropriate to create something representative of a community simply because they want to when it is not an actual factual associated representation. This is offensive and dishonest. I kindly created an alternative which @CorbieVreccan posted for public use at the Indigenous Wikiproject. The image simply does not belong here. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay...I'm not sure why you're requesting a review then. The image you used has been proposed for deletion on wikimedia commons by @CorbieVreccan, I was unsure as to how to do so myself. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want it deleted you should withdraw this. - CorbieVreccan☊☼ 21:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no idea what's going on with the wall of text above, but it seems clear that 1) whatever this image was, it likely needed to be removed, 2) it seems as if there's clear agreement it should be removed, and 3) no clear speedy criteria exists to remove it, which has needlessly escalated this whole situation. (Maybe G10?) Even with the speedy error, I don't really think there's anything more to do here apart from maybe fry up some trout - I don't see a reason to un-delete even with the incorrect speedy. SportingFlyerT·C 21:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn out of process deletion.—Alalch E. 23:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Use a collaborative approach and dialogue to resolve editing disputes. Out of process deletion in a dispute is an application of force and as such may fail to lead to a constructive resolution, and in this case it has already failed to do so, producing a minor scandal that people will now go through. Wikipedia is a wiki. All Wikipedia spaces that are publicly editable need to be treated according to that fact. No one owns userboxes. Not the user in whose userspace it's located, not the users who put it on their userpages, and not the users who assert a connection to the topic of the userbox. Deletion of userboxes is handled at MfD.—Alalch E. 23:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as out of process. MfD is the correct venue for this. I'm also starting to think that the deleting admin was WP:INVOLVED due to past conflicts/disputes with [the] editor (e.g. here and here) and their apparent strong feelings about this. CandyScythe (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED which means we don't delete non-illegal offensive images without a discussion except under G10, to which this appears entirely nonapplicable. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A userbox was deleted, not an image.—Alalch E. 01:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I stand corrected: A userbox was deleted because it had a wrong image associated with it. NOTCENSORED still applies. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn. Clear failure to follow deletion process, possible WP:INVOLVED violation, absolutely inappropriate deletion. Members of wikiprojects wishing to have pages deleted need to go through the proper channels, just like any other user, and the proper channel in this case is MFD. To be clear, I am writing here only about the deletion of the userbox User:Immanuelle/Two-spirit, and not any image thereon. Stifle (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion was clearly inconsistent with the deletion policy, as it does not fall under any of the criteria for speedy deletion. The fact a userbox uses an image someone thinks is inaccurate or offensive is not a reason to delete it unless it is enough to make the userbox an attack page or vandalism, which isn't the case here (for the record the image is File:Neapolitan two spirit flag with feathers.png). Hut 8.5 07:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obviously this is my fault. I did not think that further marginalizing a marginalized population and promoting inaccurate information was something that was allowed here. This is why I nominated the userbox for speedy deletion. I apologize for my mistake. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no blame being assigned here and no apology necessary. There's simply only a handful of reasons why something can be speedily deleted across the project. SportingFlyerT·C 21:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The deleting admin is certainly getting some deserved blame assigned. Disregarding the deletion policy and INVOLVED is very troubling. I'm not blaming the nominator for making a mistake, though the rationale and subsequent remarks could be seen as WP:UNCIVIL, and they should review the policy before flagging any further pages. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Indigenous girl's passive-aggressive non-apology demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of administrators and proper use of the tools. Avoiding further marginalizing a marginalized population and promoting inaccurate information is not a reason to skip process. There is wrong information all over Wikipedia, some of which is very insulting to a variety of subcultures and people groups. Our processes are written to address this, and G10 allows unilateral action in obvious cases of intent to harm, of which this is not one. As a general rule, if an admin knows that a particular thing is insulting by virtue of specific background knowledge when that is not obvious to the community as a whole, that admin needs to educate others such that reasonable people will come to share that understanding rather than taking unilateral action. Also, admins should have a sense of proportion about the reach and harm of an infobox: use of an infobox to attack others is more likely to be a user conduct violation requiring ANI review than it is to require an emergency, out-of-process deletion. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was absolutely not my intention to appear as passive aggressive. If you could please clarify what specifically came across as passive aggressive I would appreciate it s that I can improve my wording in the future. I am not an admin, I am fully admit, I do not have a full understanding of the role of administrators and the proper use of tools. Should I feel the need to nominate anything for deletion in the future I will be sure to fully understand the policies and will ask for input from more experienced editors prior to nominating anything. Is there somebody that would be willing to talk to me one on one about this topic so that I can better understand it? Thanks. Indigenous girl (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(←) I'm sorry. I just realized something. I forgot that Immanuelle, whose userspace this userbox was in, and I had both edited the Medicine wheel (symbol) article, as well as interacted on that talk page; I also responded to her once over at Talk:Métis. I was thinking it was only the latter, and the warnings I posted on user talk. So, yeah, this does make me over the line into involved. I should have ignored the speedy flag, no matter how much I agree. I guess many would say especially because I agree with Indigenous girl's reasons. Probably if I were better-rested I would have remembered. I shouldn't edit when tired. So, as much as I don't want to do this, I'm going to do a procedural revert. I'd still like Immanuel to follow through on what she said above about wanting it deleted. But a different admin will have to do it. Best wishes and sorry for the drama. - CorbieVreccan☊☼ 08:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
One Day Alive – Deletion endorsed. Daniel (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I am writing for the deletion of One Day Alive to be reviewed. The page was edited and multi cites were taken out leaving only like 3-4. I will edit page to add more cites. I am proposing to reenlist page as they currently have a record contract with a subsidiary company or Warner Brother Music. They also have a record coming out being produced by the guitarist of Saving Abel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbelot (talk • contribs) 14:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think I sympathise with the nom as they posted on the AfD's talk page before any other votes came in and responded to the notification on their own talk page asking where they could contribute to the discussion, but this doesn't appear to have been a notable band. The way to save this would be to produce definitive GNG-qualifying sources, and I'd possibly recommend AfC. As a FYI, the page also probably still lives as a copy on Webbelot's user page. SportingFlyerT·C 20:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temp undelete for review please? Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as having no evidence of deceptive editing prior to deletion nomination or during deletion discussion. The main editing to that article was done by an SPA, and doesn't appear to have made any unusual additions or deletions prior to AfD nomination. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Wikipedia doesn't allow articles on every topic, only those which meet criteria for notability/significance - for bands that's WP:NMUSIC. There doesn't seem to be evidence that this band meets these criteria. If they do actually release records on Warner Music Group then that would qualify, but it doesn't sound like they have yet. We can restore the page to draft space if you want to work on it. Hut 8.5 17:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I'd note, for the record, that this DRV discussion wasn't initiated until after OP approached me to get the article undeleted, and after I had already replied on their talk page — but to summarize again, the article as written did not demonstrate that the band had accomplished anything that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC, and did not use WP:GNG-worthy reliable sources to support the content. Instead, it used primary sources, blogs and circular citations to other Wikipedia articles, none of which constitutes reliable or notability-building sourcing at all, to verify that the band exists, which is not an automatic notability pass in and of itself. Furthermore, when I replied to OP, I explained that the path forward would require working via the AFC process to write an article that made a stronger notability claim, and cited better sourcing for it. No objection to draftifying, but OP has already been told what they need to do, so I don't really understand why they're still trying to bypass it. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The right conclusion by the closer, and no evidence of notability of the band. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was consensus, as correctly identified by the closer, irrespective of this or that source being changed or removed, that the subject is not notable.—Alalch E. 17:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
