Maria Monteiro Jardim – No action. Given the state of the article at Maria de Fátima Monteiro Jardim, there is little enthusiasm here for restoring the two-sentence-long sockpuppet-written deleted version. Cryptic has listed the deleted sources below. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Maria Monteiro Jardim (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The page was deleted at AfD due to lack of inherent notability of ambassadors. However, it is the same person as Maria Monteiro Jardin (the incorrect spelling comes from the source used in the page). Confirmation of the wrong spelling can be found in official documents. As a former minister of Angola, the subject meets WP:NPOL; the previously deleted content should be restored and the two pages merged. Courtesy ping to the users involved in the AfD LibStar and IgnatiusofLondon. Broc (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] I can't see the deleted page, and am fine merging any information as a result since I don't know what's there to merge, but there's a possible contradiction between the WP:NPOL assumption and what is currently written in the Maria Monteiro Jardin page, which is just one line sourced to a yearbook, meaning that article is also potentially deletable. SportingFlyer T·C 12:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] @SportingFlyer why do you think a minister does not qualify for WP:NPOL? If expanded with the content of the previous article (which listed Jardim's positions as ambassadors to Malta and Italy, if I remember correctly) the page would not be a one-liner directory listing and become a nice looking stub. Broc (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Simply that NPOL gives a presumption of notability. If the only thing we can say about this person is that they were a minister once, it's better off mentioning in a list than as a stand-alone article, even though it is likely there is more information out there. SportingFlyer T·C 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Understood. I tried digging a bit deeper, I found [1] her speech at the signature of the Paris Agreement as Minister of the Environment and [2] her full biography until 2017. IMHO notability is shown and there is enough material, including her posts as ambassador covered by the deleted sources mentioned elsewhere here. Broc (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] After looking at your rewrite, I agree. Would concur with moving the current article to the old title. SportingFlyer T·C 22:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] I'm hesitant to just restore this because it turns out also to have been a G5, but its sources were [3] [4] [5]. —Cryptic 12:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, and ~~recreate as a redir to Maria Monteiro Jardin over the deleted history~~ move Maria Monteiro Jardin to Maria Monteiro Jardim. While this was a soft deletion, the G5 history and the non-notable content makes REFUND a poor choice here. But if anyone wishes to add a sentence about the ambassadorship to the target, Cryptic listed the sources above. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] If I've understood the sources correctly, the point is that Jardin is a misspelling, so the redirect should be from Jardin to Jardim, not the other way round, and incorporate also the document that Broc has found. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] You are right. Either way, the deletion should stand, and the history should be the one of the moved Jardin page. Owen× ☎ 15:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I've never participated in a deletion review and I'm consequently reluctant to provide a definitive recommendation. But OwenX's suggestion strikes me as a straightforward solution that circumvents the G5 concern (and makes this deletion review moot?). WP:NPOL is met through the ministerial position, and it seems likely that more sources can be found to avoid a permastub. That being said, the Portuguese-language Wikipedia has the same coverage as us (same sentence on the misspelled Jardin, no article on Jardim), so we might not expect a more satisfying coverage anytime soon. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] This is a rather odd deletion review, but as a participant in the AfD endorsing the deletion but also the subsequent move back to the deleted page does hold some weight. SportingFlyer T·C 16:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Comment If there is a time for WP:IAR, this is the moment. What we have is a deletion of a page that was a duplicate of another page. That original page had a misspelling in the title, the page deleted had the correct title. Our job is to get this right for our readers. My thought is that we unwind everything to before the AfD, merge the content from the page with the incorrect title to the correct title, and then (if necessary) open a new AfD on the merged title. --Enos733 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] I'd be fully in support of your proposal if it weren't for the G5 aspect. Regardless, nothing of value was lost in this deletion, and I doubt we owe the blocked sock an attribution. Owen× ☎ 20:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Was the deleted article substantially edited by others? But, either way, I think we need to get this correctly sorted before we address the AfD close (which to be clear was not in error based on the information provided in the discussion, but other factors should be addressed first). - Enos733 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] I'd love to be corrected, but as far as I remember, the deleted article was a few sentences at most, so it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to write it from scratch using the sources shared here. I suspect that this is one of those discussions where, between AfD and DRV, we might be expending more time talking about the content than there is actual content to discuss :)) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] The deleted article was exactly two sentences, 47 words in total, with her name alone - Maria De Fátima Domingas Monteiro Jardim - making up 15% of the entire article text by character count. And yes, as you correctly point out, in the time we've spent discussing this here, we could have rewritten this several times over. But it looks like Broc already did the necessary work. Owen× ☎ 22:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Comment I wasn't expecting to initiate such a large discussion! Following the general consensus, I expanded the page at Maria Monteiro Jardin including the sources previously used in the deleted page, as mentioned by Cryptic, as well as newly found ones. As it seems admins are reluctant to recover the previous page because of G5 concerns, if no additional significant edit history is to be recovered, I would suggest closing the discussion and redirecting Maria Monteiro Jardin to Maria Monteiro Jardim or, even better, Maria de Fátima Monteiro Jardim. As the creator of this DRV, I will let someone else wrap this up. Broc (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Thank you! I agree. Owen× ☎ 22:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Broc: wait a second, what's the WP:COMMONNAME here for the title move? SportingFlyer T·C 22:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] I'm seeing Fátima, perhaps even over Monteiro. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] I agree. It seems the "shorter version" is Fàtima Jardim, although most sources go with the full name (see Portuguese name). Broc (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I think that I agree with User:Enos733, and in any case we should ignore any rules that interfere with the proper outcome (that is, the good of the encyclopedia). The proper outcome is one article with the most common correct form of the subject's name, and redirects from all shortened or lengthened forms of her name and all misspelled forms of her name that have been seen. The blocked sock is a distraction, not a real issue. The subject was a minister in a cabinet and passes notability. Create the best possible article and put it where it belongs. I am not saying to Endorse or Overturn because that is less important than the final result. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify undeleting the deleted page, but sources were copied from the deleted page and some or all have already been reused, so there is no need to undelete. Since the (other) biography of this person sat at the wrong name, which simply isn't something that can be tolerated for multiple days after being discovered, I moved that article to Maria de Fátima Monteiro Jardim as a temporary name which is not concise but at least isn't incorrect.—Alalch E. 02:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Maria Monteiro Jardim – No action. Given the state of the article at Maria de Fátima Monteiro Jardim, there is little enthusiasm here for restoring the two-sentence-long sockpuppet-written deleted version. Cryptic has listed the deleted sources below. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page was deleted at AfD due to lack of inherent notability of ambassadors. However, it is the same person as Maria Monteiro Jardin (the incorrect spelling comes from the source used in the page). Confirmation of the wrong spelling can be found in official documents. As a former minister of Angola, the subject meets WP:NPOL; the previously deleted content should be restored and the two pages merged. Courtesy ping to the users involved in the AfD LibStar and IgnatiusofLondon. Broc (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the deleted page, and am fine merging any information as a result since I don't know what's there to merge, but there's a possible contradiction between the WP:NPOL assumption and what is currently written in the Maria Monteiro Jardin page, which is just one line sourced to a yearbook, meaning that article is also potentially deletable. SportingFlyer T·C 12:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer why do you think a minister does not qualify for WP:NPOL? If expanded with the content of the previous article (which listed Jardim's positions as ambassadors to Malta and Italy, if I remember correctly) the page would not be a one-liner directory listing and become a nice looking stub. Broc (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply that NPOL gives a presumption of notability. If the only thing we can say about this person is that they were a minister once, it's better off mentioning in a list than as a stand-alone article, even though it is likely there is more information out there. SportingFlyer T·C 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I tried digging a bit deeper, I found [1] her speech at the signature of the Paris Agreement as Minister of the Environment and [2] her full biography until 2017. IMHO notability is shown and there is enough material, including her posts as ambassador covered by the deleted sources mentioned elsewhere here. Broc (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at your rewrite, I agree. Would concur with moving the current article to the old title. SportingFlyer T·C 22:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hesitant to just restore this because it turns out also to have been a G5, but its sources were [3] [4] [5]. —Cryptic 12:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, and ~~recreate as a redir to Maria Monteiro Jardin over the deleted history~~ move Maria Monteiro Jardin to Maria Monteiro Jardim. While this was a soft deletion, the G5 history and the non-notable content makes REFUND a poor choice here. But if anyone wishes to add a sentence about the ambassadorship to the target, Cryptic listed the sources above. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I've understood the sources correctly, the point is that Jardin is a misspelling, so the redirect should be from Jardin to Jardim, not the other way round, and incorporate also the document that Broc has found. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Either way, the deletion should stand, and the history should be the one of the moved Jardin page. Owen× ☎ 15:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've never participated in a deletion review and I'm consequently reluctant to provide a definitive recommendation. But OwenX's suggestion strikes me as a straightforward solution that circumvents the G5 concern (and makes this deletion review moot?). WP:NPOL is met through the ministerial position, and it seems likely that more sources can be found to avoid a permastub. That being said, the Portuguese-language Wikipedia has the same coverage as us (same sentence on the misspelled Jardin, no article on Jardim), so we might not expect a more satisfying coverage anytime soon. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rather odd deletion review, but as a participant in the AfD endorsing the deletion but also the subsequent move back to the deleted page does hold some weight. SportingFlyer T·C 16:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there is a time for WP:IAR, this is the moment. What we have is a deletion of a page that was a duplicate of another page. That original page had a misspelling in the title, the page deleted had the correct title. Our job is to get this right for our readers. My thought is that we unwind everything to before the AfD, merge the content from the page with the incorrect title to the correct title, and then (if necessary) open a new AfD on the merged title. --Enos733 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fully in support of your proposal if it weren't for the G5 aspect. Regardless, nothing of value was lost in this deletion, and I doubt we owe the blocked sock an attribution. Owen× ☎ 20:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was the deleted article substantially edited by others? But, either way, I think we need to get this correctly sorted before we address the AfD close (which to be clear was not in error based on the information provided in the discussion, but other factors should be addressed first). - Enos733 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to be corrected, but as far as I remember, the deleted article was a few sentences at most, so it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to write it from scratch using the sources shared here. I suspect that this is one of those discussions where, between AfD and DRV, we might be expending more time talking about the content than there is actual content to discuss :)) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted article was exactly two sentences, 47 words in total, with her name alone - Maria De Fátima Domingas Monteiro Jardim - making up 15% of the entire article text by character count. And yes, as you correctly point out, in the time we've spent discussing this here, we could have rewritten this several times over. But it looks like Broc already did the necessary work. Owen× ☎ 22:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't expecting to initiate such a large discussion! Following the general consensus, I expanded the page at Maria Monteiro Jardin including the sources previously used in the deleted page, as mentioned by Cryptic, as well as newly found ones. As it seems admins are reluctant to recover the previous page because of G5 concerns, if no additional significant edit history is to be recovered, I would suggest closing the discussion and redirecting Maria Monteiro Jardin to Maria Monteiro Jardim or, even better, Maria de Fátima Monteiro Jardim. As the creator of this DRV, I will let someone else wrap this up. Broc (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I agree. Owen× ☎ 22:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Broc: wait a second, what's the WP:COMMONNAME here for the title move? SportingFlyer T·C 22:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing Fátima, perhaps even over Monteiro. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It seems the "shorter version" is Fàtima Jardim, although most sources go with the full name (see Portuguese name). Broc (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that I agree with User:Enos733, and in any case we should ignore any rules that interfere with the proper outcome (that is, the good of the encyclopedia). The proper outcome is one article with the most common correct form of the subject's name, and redirects from all shortened or lengthened forms of her name and all misspelled forms of her name that have been seen. The blocked sock is a distraction, not a real issue. The subject was a minister in a cabinet and passes notability. Create the best possible article and put it where it belongs. I am not saying to Endorse or Overturn because that is less important than the final result. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify undeleting the deleted page, but sources were copied from the deleted page and some or all have already been reused, so there is no need to undelete. Since the (other) biography of this person sat at the wrong name, which simply isn't something that can be tolerated for multiple days after being discovered, I moved that article to Maria de Fátima Monteiro Jardim as a temporary name which is not concise but at least isn't incorrect.—Alalch E. 02:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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