Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 June

< May 2018	Deletion review archives	July 2018 >

30 June 2018

Gangreen (hip hop group) – Endorse. WP:A7 deletion(s) unanimously endorsed as correct. There's a suggestion here to salt, but no discussion on that point, so I'm not going to implement that. If another admin feels salting is appropriate, they're free to do so. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reason: A7 (Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). My opinion: I created a page dedicated to one of the famous underground hip-hop groups of 90's - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangreen_(hip_hop_group). I spent a lot of time creating it. Page was speedy deleted with this reason: A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. What it means? If I understand correctly, this mean that the group did not make a special contribution to the music culture. Right ? Ok, what contribution to the music culture did these groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Firm_(hip_hop_group) ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMC_(hip_hop_group) ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.O.U._(hip-hop_group) ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InI_(hip_hop_group) ?

Gangreen - It's exactly the same hip-hop group that deserves to have her story here. They were more popular than all these groups. I spent a lot of time to create this page and not one day. Nobody paid me for this page, it's the information I collected over the years. Please respect other people's work. Please let it be! Felix Montana (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. @Felix Montana: As was already explained for you, other articles with potential problems does not justify creating an article that fails to meet basic standards. The only subjects that "deserve" articles are notable ones, ones for which there are independent reliable sources about. You have admitted that there are no sources for Gangreen, which means they do not "deserve" an article, period. Work that you happen to do (remember, you don't own anything here) would get more respect if you respected our policies. Repeating the same arguments over and over is disruptive, stop doing that and start paying attention to what other people tell you. You would be better off looking for independent, professionally-published journalistic sources instead of fighting for a draft that will never be a proper article. If someone gave you the draft to keep for some other reason and you kept re-creating it, we would delete it maybe one more time and then block you for disruptive editing. If, however, you follow the instructions I left on your talk page, you could very easily create a good article about Gangreen (assuming that one can be made at all). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: I used in this article all sources that i found via Google. Some things I learned from the members of this group. Journalists have never written about this group, journalists wrote only about the death of one of the members of this group in 2007 - his name is X1 (and one of these links I used in my article). In this case I am the only journalist of this group. All that can be found on the Internet is information about the releases of this group and solo projects. The information I found was mostly stored on social networks - myspace, facebook, soundcloud. I have collected this information for a long time. Two members of this group are still continuing their solo career, and this article in a sense is their biography for their children and their relatives. Yes, I know, this is not a super popular group like the NWA or Wu-Tang Clan. But this group was created by Fredro Starr (member of the group ONYX). And if we look at other articles with the title "(hip-hop group)" such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InI_(hip_hop_group) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.O.U._(hip-hop_group) - all that we can find on these articles is link on AllMusic or link on releases of the groups (on Discogs) so at least for this reason I think that the article about the group "Gangreen" should exist, there is more information about the group's releases (that i collected for years) and there are also links to the YouTube (where ONYX members talk about their group "Gangreen") and there is article about death one of these members (X1). Therefore, I ask you to leave this article. No one will ever create this article in the future and certainly will not do it better than me, because they do not have this information. About articles on other websites i can also add these sources: http://90erhiphop.de/2015/gang-green-ft-onyx-ill-murder-you-1995-harte-kost-aus-dem-untergrund-nycs/ + http://tributetodeadrappers.blogspot.com/2015/04/date-of-birth-1979-no-relevant.html Felix Montana (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to read anything I say, then don't bother responding. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion- This music group does not seem notable, and I back the judgment of the three(!) administrators who say it's a slam-dunk A7. Reyk _YO! 10:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this is a pretty clear A7, the only thing which gives me any pause at all is the vague association with Onyx (hip hop group), who do appear to be notable. For the article to stay somebody will ultimately have to show that the subject meets WP:NMUSIC, either by providing suitable source coverage or by showing it meets one of the other criteria (e.g. appearing on charts). The sources provided above are not remotely sufficient to establish this. The existence of other articles isn't relevant, it may be that those should be deleted as well. The notability criteria require that suitable sources exist, not necessarily that the article cites them. Hut 8.5 18:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: Thank you for the advice! Thank you all! I worked a little bit with the article and filled it with links to another sources. I was forced to create a new article with changes, because the name of the group on singles and posters is spelled separately Gang Green. I hope that you will appreciate my work and completely delete my previous page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangreen_(hip_hop_group)). I hope I did not break any rules when I created a new page "Gang Green (hip-hop group)": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_Green_(hip_hop_group) Felix Montana (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the latest page. Felix has been warned before on this, so I've blocked him for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and get the SALT out. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: Yes, I know that basically in Wikipedia there are always links to websites where we can find an interview for a group, but since the Gang Green as the group was active between 1995 and 1998, they only had interviews on television (according to biography group, written by Who$ane on his official page on the Soundcloud) or perhaps in magazines. Let's not forget the fact that in the 90's, the Internet was not as developed as it is now! The only place where you could read an article about your favorite group is magazines (which began to be digitized only in the 2000s). The only place where you could see your favorite group is at concerts or on television (an interview on MTV, for example), or watch their video on video player. Therefore, it is very difficult to find any evidence of the existence of the group in the 90's, and since the group does not exist anymore (but its former members are still active, and one of them is tragically dead), then I have to refer to the biographies of these members written by them on their social networks (Soundcloud, Facebook). But social networks are not my only sources in the article! I followed your advice, added the page number in the book, added a quote and made an article use the Article wizard: Gang Green (hip-hop group) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gang_Green_(hip-hop_group) Felix Montana (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Felix Montana: If you really followed my advice, then why is the very first reference a Wordpress blog? Because (as I told you), Anyone can create entries on Wordpress, Facebook, Discogs, Youtube, or Soundcloud -- those are not reliable sources. I don't just mean "they're no good for demonstrating notability," I mean they're no good at all. Even if the Youtube videos are for interviews, or the Soundcloud page is for the official account of one of the group's members, those are not independent.

Multiple users have explained to you in a variety of ways that you need to cite professionally-published independent sources. You keep going on about things that are completely irrelevant to the lack of professionally-published independent sources. Excuses are not sources. You keep including sources that ludicrously fail the standard of "professionally-published independent sources." Do you really believe that this is a professionally-published independent source? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: Sorry, the very first reference i deleted because this is general information about the group. I appreciate every opinion. I understand that you require me to add links to articles on websites created between 1995 and 1998, but at that time the Internet was bad. And besides, the group does not exist now. This article is about what kind of group this group was in the 90's. The article was created for the future generation to study hip-hop music in the 90's. I'm sorry if there's something wrong, I used all the sources I found. Thank you for attention! Felix Montana (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have to be websites. It's fine to cite newspapers, magazines, books, printed articles etc as long as they come from reliable sources (places with a reputation for accuracy). If the band was covered by newspapers or magazines in the 90s then that would likely be enough to establish notability, but you'll need to supply citations. Hut 8.5 19:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apollo Crews – Not a matter for DRV. We only review the deletion of entire pages. This concerns the deletion of text from within articles. See WP:DR for how to resolve this. – Sandstein 17:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Using Apollo Crews’ page as an example, I am raising a challenge to the deletion of the “In wrestling” section from Wikipedia articles on professional wrestling due to what I feel are several major problems with the decision. I’m also relatively new to challenging deletions and other internal Wikipedia issues, so this may not be 100% clear and perfect.

1. There were significant procedural violations with the deletion. A group of 8 WT:PW editors does not speak for the pro wrestling and Wikipedia communities as a whole, and as shown by the page, public consensus seems to be against the editors’ decision. The decision was initially very quiet and under-the-radar, with little publicity, which appeared to be an attempt to make the decision official and close debate before anyone aside from the few editors could voice their opinions on the subject, which once again indicates significant procedural error.
2. There have been violations of WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, as it is clear on the page that the consensus outside of the few editors is against the decision, yet this continues to be ignored and put aside.
3. There have been repeated violations of WP:Civility, as, directly or indirectly, the editors have demeaned those who disagree with the decision via simply branding the dissent as WP:Fancruft or assuming that most dissent has come from a Reddit thread on the topic which attracted considerable attention. There has also been repeated use of sarcasm and snarky remarks towards those who disagree with the decision.
4. The deletion negates a major source of information in the article, much of which is difficult to put into prose. Many have used this section as a “fast facts” style section to gain basic information on a wrestler without having to read a massive block of text in the main article; removing the bullet-point list and inserting the (subjectively-judged) “important” info as prose completely defeats the point of having the info in the first place.
5. For a variety of reasons, the deletions are motivated by hardline deletionism that has seemingly taken over Wikipedia, with the movement to brand all information not “neatly organized” as useless trivia and have it removed. This has a massive amount of problems that I don’t even need to delve into, though I will say that it is important to consider both inclusionist and deletionist arguments in a debate such as this, which clearly has not been done. The Kip (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 June 2018

28 June 2018

27 June 2018

Comparison of web browser engines (typography support) – overturned and relisted. – TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deletion log refers to two people's assertions which are inaccurate:

"…half of the info already covered in the large CSS comparison article…"

How about the other half? The information I have referred to this page for across many years certainly is not present in another article. I looked.

"…haven't had a meaningful update in over 7 years."

Web typography has not changed significantly in many years, so why would information referring to it need to.

"…this one is also redundant…"

Again, the information in the article is not present in any other, and is therefore not redundant.

Deleting admin said "Sorry, the discussion is over now, and I‘m not interested enough in the topic to pursue this further.".
Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably reasonable to treat this as WP:SOFTDELETE given the participation. So I'm leaning toward restore on that basis but soft deletion isn't something I see a lot of and would like to hear from others who deal with this in practice before formally !voting. Hobit (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As a part of that, none of the deletion arguments seem particularly on-point. They don't address notability and redundancy is generally better addressed with a redirect or talk-page discussion. Hobit (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to draft given the low participation in the AfD treating it as a soft deletion is reasonable, however the fact that the article is badly out of date is a substantial concern and I think that if restored it should be draftified so updates can be made. Even if web typography doesn't change often browsers certainly do. For example Google Chrome, the most popular browser, has used the Blink engine since 2013. Blink isn't covered at all, presumably because the list was written before Chrome used it. (Blink is a fork of Webkit, which was covered, however I'm sure Google have done something with it in the last five years.) Several features for Mozilla are listed as "experimental" cited to bug reports which were filed up to a decade ago and have been closed for years. The AfD nomination was right that about half of the content (the part relating to CSS) is also present in Comparison of browser engines (CSS support). Hut 8.5 06:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this argument, even though things that were supported by WebKit as used by Google Chrome will for the most part still be supported by Blink, making the information still useful. As to this argument, though, I'm not really sure why it's worth expending effort to delete an article but not to make incremental updates to it instead. To me the latter is more in line with the purpose of this website. That said I've no particular problem with merging at the very least what I now miss into the larger article, but I would prefer if things that are not present elsewhere are merged into elsewhere before they are deleted forever. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first half of the deleted article has information which is also found in Comparison of browser engines (CSS support), except that the deleted article is obviously badly out of date. Numerous features in the table in question are listed as experimental in the deleted article and supported in the visible article, or not supported in the deleted article and supported or experimental in the visible article. If the rest of the article is as out of date as that then it's very misleading. To quote Jimbo, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". The deleted article hadn't had many updates since 2011, and seven years is a long time in web development. I'm not saying we shouldn't have an article on this topic, but it will need to be at least vaguely current to be of any benefit to our readers. Hut 8.5 18:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the article (it's deleted, it isn't present on archive.org, etc.), but from memory of years of use as reference and 3rd party copies there is plenty of relevant information that is not present in Comparison of browser engines (CSS support). There is not, for example, information on font formats support. Again, this support has changed incredibly little in many years. I also appreciate that quote, but AIUI it was in reference to uncited information, not cited, still-relevant, slightly in need of updating information. Seven years is a long time in web development, but for certain things (including web typography), web development has always moved very slowly (in this case it moved very slowly for many years, had a swift spike in activity, and immediately again began to plateau). Mostly, though, it's just harder to make it more current without it being present, and I for one feel that deleting something and then trying to add it again to somewhere else because it's useful information is backwards. We should merge first, then delete, or simply redirect, etc.. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from my comment above I am not opposed to Wikipedia having an article on this topic, I am merely asking that the page be moved to draft space so it can be brought up to date (or at least verified that the information has not changed in the last seven years). An article which presents plenty inaccurate information to the reader is extremely harmful and much worse than not having an article on the topic at all. If we don't have an article then someone looking for that content would at least look elsewhere and hopefully find something better. Again I'm not saying this article just has to stay deleted, only that someone needs to put the effort into updating it before it goes back into mainspace. Hut 8.5 18:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion- based on the participation at the AfD I don't see this as an unreasonable close. Seems to me to be a toss-up between hard and soft deletion, so I'd have no objection to restoring it to draft space. As long as some effort is made to bring it up to date because, as Hut 8.5 points out, the antiquity of the content actually makes it misleading. Reyk _YO! 07:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every page on the internet is out of date (except for the deleted ones which are even less useful) IMO, but again I do appreciate this concern myself, and could do a brush up if it's restored. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could we possibly Relist? I would have relisted this as participation was minimal. Seems reasonable to treat as a WP:SOFTDELETE. SportingFlyer talk 17:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - Relist or draftify seem reasonable per those above; I also would not oppose a restore. Therefore, I suppose, I support any form of undeletion.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to "Redirect to Comparison of browser engines (CSS support)". Textbook failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Policy at WP:ATD. Nominator is redlinked and probably hasn't read WP:BEFORE, the !voter's "small" implies "merge" and "redundant" implies "redirect". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The title isn't a plausible search term so there's no point in redirecting unless it's to preserve the edit history for something. Half of this page is already present in your suggested target and the remainder is out of scope for the target article as it doesn't involve CSS. Closing as merge or redirect without anybody in the AfD even suggesting the possibility would also be a supervote. Hut 8.5 06:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah maybe. I guess I mean “relist” and I think I’d have !voted “redirect”. Keep the history and let the details get sorted on the target talk page, though possibly nothing to sort in the end. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the font format support when you say out of scope, I'd say that is a strangely fine distinction you are making, as that is all actuated via CSS, which even has concessions for specifying format. If you aren't referring to the font format support, then I'm afraid you are merely wrong, as that information is both not present in the other article, not out of scope, & not irrelevant. Even if everyone agreed it was out of scope for an article on CSS (I don't know how that could ever happen reasonably, but let's just say for argument's sake), it would still be useful information that should, as it has been in the past (on articles with various titles, IIRC), be included somewhere. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT the scope of Comparison of browser engines (CSS support) is features which are defined in CSS specifications. This looks to me like a reasonable definition of what is CSS and what isn't. That page is already very long so I don't think we should be trying to make it longer by expanding the scope. As you can see from the above I'm not opposed to Wikipedia having a standalone page on this topic, I just don't think that the AfD becomes invalid because the participants didn't merge or redirect it. Hut 8.5 18:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. minimal discussion t' considering the deletion rationale, . I would myself have certainly relisted in a situation like this if a good faith editor were to ask me.; I recognize I make errors. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, deletion process was not correctly followed in that there was insufficient discussion at the AFD to generate consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The close was marginal. I probably would have relisted this instead of closing it, or at least closed it as WP:SOFTDELETE. But, more than that, this response to a query was inappropriate. It's one thing to stand by your decision and explain why, but to just blow off an enquiry by saying you're not interested in the topic is not up to the highest standards of WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT. Relisting seems like the best way forward, but I have no objection to restoring this to either mainspace or to draftspace, with the proviso that Excelsiorsbanjo commits to following through with the remedial work that's needed. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment: Yeah, you're right. @RoySmith and Excelsiorsbanjo: I'm sorry that I wasn't more forthcoming. I should have explained how the article could be recreated, or considered relisting. As it is, I support relisting so that Excelsiorsbanjo can make their argument in the AfD. Sandstein 17:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closer comment: I have closed this discussion, overturning the deletion and relisting, per the above and Sandstein's (the original closer) support. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 June 2018

Wikipedia:Other crap exists – Overturn to No Consensus. I'm going to restore the redirect. I'm not sure what SmokeyJoe means by, the closer must ensure that someone pipes all eighteen incoming links; I'm assuming he'll take care of that. – -- RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I closed this as delete, but am preemptively opening this DRV with an eye on the impending closure of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS at RfD (most likely and rightfully as keep). I stand by my read of the consensus for WP:Other crap exists and subsequent close of that discussion, as well as my additional explanation offered at the second RfD (specifically, that I think it's quite reasonable for the full title and the shortcut to be treated differently). At any rate, given the divergence between participation between the two, I felt it worthwhile to open this for discussion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping participants of RfD (Atlantic306—Tavix—Thryduulf—Boneso—MrX—Wbm1058—JFG—Innisfree987) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ping participants of second discussion (Ritchie333—Finnusertop—Steel1943—Godsy—Chris troutman—Jax 0677—SMcCandlish—Smartyllama) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus as I suggested at the RfD for the other redirect. Essentially, views were split roughly half-in-half between "keep" and "delete", and neither set of arguments obviously had the upper hand in my view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus seems to be the larger consensus and to be consistent Atlantic306 (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, period, per the keep WP:SNOWBALL at the other related discussion; per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY / WP:WIKILAWYER / WP:POINT / WP:Common sense; per the standard "redirects are cheap" overwhelming consensus at WP:RFD; and because the deletion just made a bunch of pointless redlink holes in various past discussions [1]. This is ultimately a WP:CONLEVEL matter. A "maaaybe we might delete this" micro-local quasi-consensus is meaningless in the face of an ongoing strong consensus in one particular direction at a well-attended XfD that is topically indistinguishable. XfDs need to be interpreted and closed with past and concurrent XfDs (and other, broader consensuses) also taken into account. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close which accurately reflected the comments in the discussion. Besides, why do we need multiple crappy redundant redirects for the same target? Let it go, or write it on a bathroom wall.- Mr X 🖋 16:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RfD isn't based on whether a redirect is "needed", but whether a particular redirect causes some kind of problem (is confusing, is an attack, is nonsensical gibberish and so wastes space and maint. time without ever being used, etc.). I don't actually prefer RfD going in that direction, but it is very strongly the direction that RfD has travelled, so it should be applied evenly, not differentially on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus I don't see how there was a consensus to delete, especially in light of the more recent AfD. And redirects aren't articles - WP:ITSUSEFUL is a valid argument to keep. Smartyllama (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, and kudos to closer Amorymeltzer for self-awareness about their error. — JFG ^talk 17:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There was no consensus to delete the redirect, and arguably a slight consensus to keep it (I see both keep and no consensus as being within admin discretion, based on the arguments presented). Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Thanks for the ping Amory. I wish it had gone for delete but I can't say I thought that was the sum of the discussion. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - without even taking into account the new discussion, I do not think the result of old discussion can reasonably, objectively be interpreted as anything besides no consensus. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus- though I disagree in principle with the notion that the views of XfD participants should be thrown out just because there might be related discussion happening elsewhere, I don't see any consensus to delete at this discussion. If anything, it was probably leaning keep. Reyk _YO! 07:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. My original vote was keep based on levity & not being offensive. I see no reason to change my vote. However, if the shortcut goes then this should go too. I don't see the difference between Wikipedia:Other crap exists and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Either way I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist. Thanks for the ping Amory. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - Despite my objection to this redirect, I say that more discussion is needed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to non-consensus. That was the only resultthat reflected thediscussion. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Decision within admin discretion (noting a binary decision, no content or history at stake), however, the closer must ensure that someone pipes all eighteen incoming links to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I believe SmokeyJoe meant that it would be necessary to pipe the links if the closure stood (and implied it should have been done at the time of the closure that was being debated here). As this has been overturned, it is not necessary to fix incoming links. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Colors (Hindi TV channel) – We don't entertain socks. – -- RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am a new user to wikipedia. When I know that there is no page for colors tv, I wanted to create a page for it. But unfortunately it was deleted quickly. I don't know the reason. All references for that article are from reliable sources. Anyone please tell me how to create an article for colors tv because all articles created for it had either deleted or redirected to viacom 18. Thank you. Christina74124 (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:Articles for deletion/Colors Kannada, it was decided that both Colors Kannada and Colors (TV channel) were not notable apart from their parent company, ETV Network and were redirected there. Colors (Hindi TV channel) appears to be just another name for the same thing, so it's not needed. That being said, the AfD was almost three years ago, so maybe things have changed. Can you provide three sources which demonstrate that the channel is notable? If so, it might be worth reconsidering, but lacking that, I'll have to endorse the deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation in draft form for the WP:AFC process as it is a major broadcaster,thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable, and if any of the original content at either article was worth using as a basis to work from, WP:REFUND could be used to recover a copy of it to the draft namespace or to userspace. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Atlantic306 and SMcCandlish: in case you weren't aware, a draft already exists at Draft:Colors TV. For background on the editor(s) involved, please also see the linked SPI. Thanks, TMG^talk 18:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah. That draft has just been deleted, and the "new" account above indeffed. TMG^talk 18:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Derp. Well, if anyone else cares to work on it, they know how to do so. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 June 2018

24 June 2018

Zara Kitson – No consensus closure endorsed. – Hut 8.5 20:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Although a majority (by one) of votes were in favour of deletion, Sandstein discounted my vote on the basis that it "does not address the sourcing level and quality".

I clarified the rationale behind my vote in a message at Sandstein's talk page, in which he replied that the argument had been placed that the "amount of coverage she received is what makes her notable". I don't agree that this is a suitable rationale for retention of the article; many non-notable unelected politicians have been referenced in the media multiple times, and in many of the sources provided in the article, she is only mentioned once in passing, thus certainly failing WP:GNG.

Furthermore, retaining this article sets a bad precedent regarding the (ab)use of Wikipedia for electioneering as a campaign resource. --RaviC (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment:Our deletion policy requires a consensus in favor of deletion in order to delete an article. Because AfD is not a majority vote, an AfD with one "vote" difference will generally result in a "no consensus, default to keep" closure, as here, unless the "delete" side has the clearly more compelling arguments in terms of our policies and guidelines. I don't think that this is the case here: editors may in good faith disagree about whether a given amount and quality of coverage meets WP:GNG or not. See also my comments at User talk:Sandstein#Article deletion review 2. Sandstein 08:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This makes no sense to me, as I count a seven-to-three delete vote on consensus grounds (before any votes are discounted, but I don't know which ones would be.) SportingFlyer talk 13:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, I only remembered that it was a narrow decision, so I took RaviC at their word regarding the one "vote" difference. But looking at it again it was narrow in terms that we were close to a 2:1 "delete" supermajority. Above this threshold, numbers begin to weigh significantly in my experience, whereas below this threshold, arguments must be examined closely. And I didn't see one side or the other as stronger in terms of argument here, so that's why it mattered that I had to give less weight to RaviC's "delete" opinion. Sandstein 15:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This was a pretty messed-up AfD. There's some obvious vote-spamming by the nom (which was noticed and struck), plus the canvassing. And, another of the delete !votes was from an IP, so for all anybody can tell, that's just more vote-spam from the same person. The two IP's in question geoip locate to Edinburgh and near London, so it's reasonable to assume these are people who have some political-based COI. All in all, a perfect example of why AfD closing isn't about vote counting. In light of all that, closing the AfD as NC doesn't seem unreasonable. I wouldn't have any problem with an immediate renomination, with the proviso that anything which could possibly be construed to be canvassing will result in an immediate block. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was more than one rational keep. I consider this a little borderline, and would probably myself have closed as non-consensus. I'm not sure I would really object to a delete close, however, especially because of the canvassing DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Given how the discussion played out with the canvassing and IP votes, there didn't seem to be a real consensus to delete or keep. The "No Consensus" close seems appropriate. However, I would not have a problem with renominating the article for deletion to see if a consensus can be reached with further discussion. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I voted to delete, I realise this might not be a clear-cut case, I feel inclined to cut the admins a bit of slack sometimes, and avoid early re-opening of discussions. PatGallacher (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is rarely a point in appealing a non-consensus close; it is easier to renominate if one wants to delete, or let the status quo stand if one wishes to keep. The main exception is when the close is a gross misunderstanding on the part of the closer which needs to be publicly corrected. That's certainly not the case here. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Couldn't have been closed any other way. WP:RENOM. Messed up discussion yes, which happens so easily with such a bad nomination statement. See the advice at WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fan of WP:RENOM because it reduces churn, but it doesn't apply here. It makes sense when the goal is to see if community consensus has changed over time. There's no reason to delay when the first discussion was found to be defective. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The advice is to make a better nomination statement next time. A short delay helps with doing that. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, no consensus is exactly what there was. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus was fair given canvassing and ip concerns Atlantic306 (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse IP-bashing aside, it's a fairly good example of what no consensus could look like. I don't find a consensus on that page to keep, far from it, but likewise I don't see a coalescent around delete. The keep arguments were stronger and seemingly unrefuted; they may not have convinced other participants, but I don't see and am not convinced there's a solid outcome on either side. So, no consensus. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 June 2018

Pyrrho (RDBMS) – G11 speedy deletion is overturned. There is a lot of support for listing the article at AfD so I will do that shortly. – Hut 8.5 20:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inappropriate application and due diligence in use of WP:G11 by nominator and deleting administrator with failure to follow G11 Field guide guidelines. Guidelines suggest use of Speedy G11 is only appropriate in unambiguously blatant cases. I suggest this has been an abuse of the speedy delete procedure ... possibly in good faith. Possible also deleting admin may have suggested DRV to get a precedence example Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find this in a Google cache anywhere. Could we get a temp undelete? Hobit (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, list at AfD G11 Field guide is an essay. The policy is at WP:G11, and differs is some significant ways. For example, the essay talks about an article being unsalvageable, but the policy only talks about the need for it to be fundamentally rewritten. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but it seems like the essay is applying a higher bar. The text in the essay dates back to April 2007. We've gotten more stringent in the past 11 years, in response to ever-increasing abuse. That being said, this doesn't seem like classic G11 material. I doubt it would survive WP:AfD, but G11 seems like quite a stretch to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been A7 also — I think it does need to be fundamentally rewritten and the sourcing is basically non-existant, so improvement is not likely. I think those factors, taken together, would meet the requirements of even more conservative admins. But since we're here I think it would be helpful if Djm-leighpark could address the issue of whether he believes this article would even survive AfD — if the answer is no, it could also have been non-controversially deleted as an A7.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about software aren't eligible for A7 deletion. This isn't even close. —Cryptic 21:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I do stand by the G11 nomination in any case, the article needs to be fundamentally rewritten. I think it would be easier to do a little more work so it meets basic standards, instead of blaming editors for good faith efforts trying to maintain those standards. One giveaway of a promotional article is that it doesn't contain any content that doesn't serve a promotional purpose.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I never understood why WP:A7 only applied to specific things (people, animals, organizations, web content, events). If people and animals, why not software? If web content, why not books, movies, newspapers, etc? It all seems rather arbitrary. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to discuss possible procedural misuse of WP:G11 in the first instance, and maybe we all learn something ... me especially as I've missed the footie highlights being here ... and because one man's attempt at objective description of key facts (without going WP:ORIGINAL) can be another's unambiguous advertising ... and of course I will blame User:Seraphim System for the speedy, but appreciate his work in general. I'd agree the sources are right at the bare minimum to survive AfD, but in my opinion are enough: the sourced European Commission project likely needed an Optimistic concurrency control (OCC) conventional RDBMS for that project and Pyrrho is one of about 2 or so examples of that to my knowledge, Mimer SQL being the other clear one. The fact it's in the significant Connolly/Begg book is another one. Improvement contributions to the article are of course welcome.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

overturn speedy I don't see how it's hugely promotional. It has some sense of "this is why you want to use it" but it's pretty barebones. Not sure it would make it at AfD (can't tell how independent the coverage is) but it isn't a G11 (or A7). Hobit (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
List At AfD. Borderline G11, not offensive, these should be easily undeleted and listed at AfD based on any reasonable objection. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to Afd--Per SmokeyJoe.I, for one, (like RoySmith) has never understood the restriction of A7 but that's suff for another day...∯WBG^converse 07:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm not voting here, but I actually don't think it should go to AfD, because it may survive AfD and it should not be in mainspace until it ready. I see hundreds of low-quality articles while working through the backlogs at AfC and NPP, and the response is often complaints about deletion, or not passing AfC and comments like "improvement contributions to the article are of course welcome". Hundreds, with hundreds more waiting review — AfC and NPP don't have the resources to rewrite every single one. If they are allowed in mainspace, most are not improved, and they stay that way for years. What I look for is "Is it trying to sell something" and "does it contain content I can't find on the company/product webpage" — This article doesn't give any (sourced) information that you can't find at Pyrrho's own webpage. I would support moving it to draftspace, but absolutely not keeping it in mainspace until it's ready. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That’s a point you can make at AfD. That is the purpose of of AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)] ^(talk) 13:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD It's probably not notable, but it is also not particualrly promotional.I can't see the point of sying "it shouldn't go to afd because it might survive AfD" == thhat'sactually a good reason for listing it at afd. That's where we test notabillity. Personally, I think it should have been written as a draft, but if someone wants to try AfD, and hope for the erratic keep ~~leep~~ result, they have the right to do so. DGG ( talk ) 13:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup, which means articles that are not ready for mainspace can't just be deleted through the AfD process if the underlying topic is notable (though that doesn't stop editors from trying sometimes). Most often, they just end up staying in mainspace unless someone else does the cleanup — which I do prefer to deletion, if it is something I can fix like improperly formatted references — but in this case, there are hardly any accessible sources, so that wasn't an option. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG, “erratic leep result”?? Should have been written in draft? You may be interested to read Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A2soup/Don't use draftspace. This bit of software should never be in draft, in draft, in AfC, it will only waste everyone’s time, the author’s, the reviewers’. It is either suitable for mainspace or it is not, and no improvement will change the decision. And draftspace is not the place where help is received. Only by linking to similar topics, through categories. Through wikilinks, things forbidden in draftspace, will the author of this, and editors interested in similar topics, encounter. It should be in mainspace, stand-alone, or merged, or it should be deleted, and AfD is the place for that decision. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing leep -> keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

corrected. And if written in draft, might have turned out to be expandable and given a chance to improve. I gather, SmokeyJoe, you don't think drafts ever get improved, but my experience there is that, of the 9/10 that get declined at first, about 1/5 of them do improve enough to be moved and kept in mainspace. It might be higher if more reviewers there offerred practical advice, instead of using the over-general templates. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think unsubmitted drafts never get help, and when submitted, they get less help than a new article in mainspace gets. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dont restore as everyone seems to agree it’s crap that shouldn’t be in the encyclopedia, I see no point in having this exact same conversation with the opposite outcome for a week. No reason to waste community time. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not crap, it is just a pedestrian NSOFT problem. The time wasting is what’s happening here, it should have been speedy restored and AfD-ed on the reasonable objection. There may be Merge options, evaluating notability and merge options is the job of AfD not DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It used to be standard practice that a contested CSD was automatically turned into an AfD nomination. Then there was some big (and, IMHO, silly) todo about what we shouldn't do that anymore. So, here we are. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note I don't think there is an NSOFT. My understanding is that software is currently covered only by WP:NPRODUCT which is part of WP:NORG — the A7 wording exempts "creative works" like software, but would it exempt run of the mill products too, like a type of tire? It doesn't say.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. You don't think there is an WP:NSOFT? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the essay, but the only guideline is NPRODUCT, based on what I've seen in other discussions. I support turning NSOFT into a guideline, but there are some points of disagreement, for example the part about informal sourcing for FoSS software would seem to directly implicate the independent sourcing requirement.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also confused. Why are you bringing up A7 in relation to WP:NPRODUCT at all? —Cryptic 14:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I know for the future - are you saying NPRODUCT is not covered by by any of speedy criteria? I guess ideally I am hoping someone will link me to a previous RfC where this has been discussed, because I am still relatively new at NPP. Products are probably not creative works so why would they be excluded on a technicality?Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at AfD It may or may not be notable, but it doesn't fulfill the requirements of WP:G11. The community should come to a consensus about this deletion. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AFD as not spam enough for G11 Atlantic306 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - G11 clearly is not applicable in this case. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 June 2018

21 June 2018

20 June 2018

List of national capitals in alphabetical order – Not relisted but also not endorsed. Let me elaborate: The consensus here is that the discussion probably should have been left open to allow further clarification on what exactly to do with this list. However, the fact that it wasn't is not a reason to overturn the close since there are other ways to have the same discussion. The argument that "AFD" stands for "articles for deletion" and not "discussion" weighs in here as well because as soon as there is consensus not to delete an article, AFD has served its purpose. While DGG points out correctly that many AFDs are kept open even when this is the case, the policy does not require it, so Sandstein did not violate it when closing this discussion prematurely. That said, he might take away from this discussion that next time when coming across an AFD like that, he should allow the discussion to run its course. So while the consensus at this DRV is that the AFD should not be relisted, it's also clear that further discussion can and should happen elsewhere and the redirect can be reversed. RoySmith's "Endorse-ish" probably describes this best. – So Why 13:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This AFD was closed abruptly with redirect outcome contrary to the consensus. I tried reverting the closure and explained myself to the closer, asking they let the reversion stand, but they will not. I see that at their Talk page another participant already contacted the closer to point out their closure was wrong and asking their approval to proceed with Keeping the page instead, to which the closer already agreed. Doncram (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, IMO the consensus was to Keep the nominated article, and also to move it to "List of national capitals" and probably to merge others into it, with appreciation for it having been created in 2001 and serving well until it was trashed somewhat by an editor in 2012. The close given gives primacy to some other version, which is just not the consensus. At their Talk page the closer has stated they didn't mean to insist this not be done, and that they merely assert "it is now for editors to decide what to do with this content, as long as no additional lists are created". The correct close, by consensus, is Keep. --Doncram (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment: I don't understand what the argument Doncram is trying to make here is, or why they think that the first thing to do to contest an AfD closure would be to revert it. They do not explain why they believe the closure was wrong (in the AfD they even supported redirecting as an alternative to deletion), so I can't really comment on this request as such. My view of the outcome of the discussion was that consensus is that this is one list of capitals too many, but that there's not necessarily consensus about which of the several lists should be retained and under which title. The redirect, intended as a provisional measure, allows editors to figure this out through editing, moving and merging as may be required; it only prevents the recreation of the hard-coded alphabetical list in its original form. Sandstein 20:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the first thing I do in usual cases. Here I thought the close was egregiously wrong and I tried reverting it, and asking Sandstein to let that stand, rather than having a DRV, which they did not agree to. I understand that the purpose of a DRV is more about evaluating the conduct of the closer and passing judgment about that. I wanted to avoid that, but here we are.

About the facts, there is consensus that the AFD'd article is the primary one to be restored/resurrected/expanded, so "Redirect" away from that is not the correct close. --Doncram (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I think that it matters that the closure be "Keep" to underline a clear consensus that recognition of the original, 2001 version is valued and important. In that list and competing other lists, there has been disrespect and trashing going on, of the decent/good/great work. To close this with "redirect" is another instance of disrespect, a mild further trashing that "whatever, it doesn't matter", when it does. --Doncram (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll offer that in some other recent AFD closures, not necessarily by the same closer, I was frustrated by closes which cut short productive discussion about what to really do about some situation, when the discussion was nearing some good resolution. Only to have a closer butt in with a close directing further discussion to a move discussion or elsewhere, causing more work requiring notifying all participants of a new discussion, etc. A "provisional" close just kicking the can down the road is far less helpful than a proper closure which settles the issue. --Doncram (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I don't really understand what the goal of this deletion review is, to be honest. The AfD was closed after eight days, so timing is not an issue, and consensus was that several pages from Wikipedia's history needed to be cleaned up/merged. The AfD result allows the discussion to continue elsewhere while preserving everything necessary if the final decision would be to recreate the page and merge the other pages into this one. AfDs aren't the places to get consensus on how to clean up specific pages - they're the places to determine whether or not a specific page should be deleted. SportingFlyer talk 22:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I also don't understand what this is here for. If you don't like the close of an AfD then you can't just revert the closure and try to sort-of-close it yourself. (Well you can if you're an admin and the closer is a non-admin but here it's the other way round.) The (original) close is perfectly fine, while there was consensus that we should have fewer lists of this type there was no agreement on which list to keep, and plenty of participants did not express agreement with the OP's view. The close doesn't prevent the OP's solution from being enacted either, it just means the call is an editorial decision rather than one for AfD. Hut 8.5 06:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The outcome is reasonable and in any event, a ready-made, self-maintaining, and clean list is available as a category. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. We have a strict process at AfD because it handles 50–100 articles a day and we need to keep on top of it. If the seven days elapses and there is a consensus on whether the article should or should not be deleted (not necessarily on the final fate of the page – it's articles for deletion, remember), then closing is the proper thing to do. I understand what Doncram is saying, but keeping them open for extended discussions isn't really practical. Following up on the talk page and pinging the participants isn't exactly onerous. – Joe (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse-ish. There was clear consensus here that we didn't need all of these lists. In the long-run, I think power~enwiki's suggestion to move this to List of national capitals made more sense than the current redirect, but that's a complicated process because it in turn redirects to Lists of capitals, only some of which is devoted to list of national capticals sorted by whatever, so that was probably too big a thing to undertake as part of an AfD close. The close correctly points out that the current redirect preserves all the history and people can continue to discuss a better solution on the talk pages and then implement it without need for heavyweight processes like AfD or DRV. I get Doncram's point that it would be nice to preserve the longest article history in the final result. And also that fragmenting the discussion into various places is not perfect, but we live in a non-perfect world. As long as we continue to make progress towards reorganizing these multiple lists that have been obsoleted by better technology (i.e. sortable lists) that didn't exist in the old days, we're good. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a few thots
- Sandstein got it wrong, and there is great reluctance to admit it, in part because Sandstein is an administrator and y'all are ganging together against a non-administrator calling them on their mistake. As if this was a de-sysoping vote. Would it be so terrible to comment that the closer did get it wrong?
- Sandstein is wrong in casually asserting here that I supported redirecting, which is a bad read of the AFD again now when they should be more careful, after two editors (myself and User:Tavix) informed them they got it wrong. Admit no mistakes is a policy that works for some.
- It does cost other editors when you get it wrong. Here it cost at least two editors time to try to think out how to proceed, in order to save/develop the article per consensus. It would require getting admin help to move pages, against the outcome of the AFD. I thought about it overnight and took one approach, the somewhat extraordinary step of reverting the close, and asking the closer nicely to consider just leaving that, which they declined to do. I didn't see that Tavix beat me to the closer's Talk page with a different request, asking the closer to back off and let Tavix fix it which they said they would do. Maybe Tavix was politer, and their approach conveyed less the fact that the close was wrong (although simple reading of their request was that the close was wrong). My choice to revert the close was also a lesser thing than opening a DRV, which would put public attention on the closer's decision. Anyhow, your wrong choice causes work/hassle for others, including our trying worry about your little egos. It is not just a matter of notifying others, it is a hassle to create a new decision venue, and it is a hassle to ask administrators to make a move against the close decision, and so on. And it is a hassle to risk having to go to DRV in the end anyhow, if an administrator won't admit a mistake and a less confrontational approach doesn't work out to fix the situation.
- Right, it is not the end of the world, because "redirect" outcome did not delete the page history, and other editors can fix it.
- If you think it doesn't matter, that the only purpose of AFD is to determine "Delete" or "Not delete", then I would like to kindly ask that you don't close AFDs. And I would like to ask you don't participate in DRVs, too. AFD is not merely that for numerous conscientious editors trying to really fix content situations, and trying not to drive away as many editors as AFD has done over time. Protect the administrators first, screw the creators of articles and the good faith participants in the AFDs.
- Gee thanks for listening. :) --Doncram (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for further discussion. Most AfDs are determined in 7 days, with adequate or sometimes minimal participation. Most of the others get relisted, not because it isn't decided what do do between suggested alternatives, but because nobody has yet participated. Only a few each day have significant discussion and remian undecidedafter the 7 days. We can well handle the work of relisting them.It's less han the work of dealing with an incompletely thought out decision. The idea that AfD is to decide between keep and delete with no alternatives has not been the case for several yearts now. Regardless of what the process is called, in practice we consider all of the various possibilities. A redirect decision at AfD is different from one taken in editing--the convention has developed that overturning a redirect or merge at AfD takes discussion, not just a revert. We have in my opinion only one process at WP for deciding on content that works well, which is XfD. I think the reason for that is beause we have the supplemental step of deletion review as a regular proceedure, and we should use it more.

But I hope no admin minds criticism , even undeserved criticism. The two basic abilities of an admin are the ability to decide according to the knowledge or rules, and the ability to tolerate even unfair discussion of the their decisions. Anyone who thinks they are always correct should run their own site, where nobody can contradict them. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. It's way more effort to take discussion elsewhere and start over to a certain extent when we were close to figuring it out at the AfD. Another week and I think we can figure out a bit more than "there are too many national capital lists", but which list(s) should be merged where. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I've started a related discussion at WT:AfD -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. AFD is not a good place to be trying to reorganise a group of articles. Leave this to discussion on the talk pages. With the closer's view of the discussion either "keep" or "redirect" would have been fine with the extra guidance offered. An explicit "do not delete" would have been better still. An unqualified "redirect" would have been unacceptable. Thincat (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you agree that "Redirect" was not the consensus, but you "endorse" nonetheless. I don't get this.

Umm, the AFD which was an attempt to delete an article, is an excellent place what to do about the article. Discussion was indeed happening which disproves that, and in my view was close enough to done that it could have been closed "Keep". Instead, you want discussion to happen where? At the Talk page of a now-redirected article? And the authority of me and a few others to force a new discussion and decision being that we don't like the outcome of the AFD, so we are trying to do something different, and we are to ask the other participants to all show up and vote again? And now we have to summarize what went on in the AFD and how the close didn't matter because the closer wasn't trying to close it as an accurate summary of the AFD? How much weight should me and the others who don't like the (incorrect) outcome to get, relative to the views of any participants who "won"? Who is supposed to close this new discussion, an administrator who is supposed to judge that the original closer was wrong? Or should it be closed by an administrator who is pledged not to criticize the original closer's decision? --Doncram (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am endorsing the overall closing statement (which I thought was good) and saying I think that "redirect" as a one-word summary was within discretion. It is clear (to me) that redirection was not mandatory. Thincat (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I shouldn't overstate it. But the closer did redirect it, and did state the AFD outcome as "The result was redirect to List of countries by national capital, largest and second-largest cities."

This followed upon, and seemed to ratify very last comment in the AFD which had not yet been supported or otherwise commented upon, but in my opinion now was pretty incoherent and incorrect, including in that it stated the contents of the article were included in the suggested redirect target, which is not so (it lacks the useful column of notes about national capitals). Certainly in any following discussion, that editor would feel entitled to insist more that their view was accepted.

What else did the closer have to base a decision upon? Well, the discussion by Peter James, myself, Tavix, power~enwiki, and myself, [and Ansh666], the series of previous commenters (45 in total), was making a trend. The simple "Delete" votes of previous 54 others should have been evaluated (downweighted) in light of fact they were not informed by information that had been put forward. The example of power~enwiki [and Ansh666] who changed their early "Delete" vote to "Keep" based on the additional information, should especially have been weighted more, IMHO. That's ~~5:4:1~~4:5:1 voting for Delete/Keep/Redirect to that one list, and the closer should take into account the quality of the arguments. [revised to reflect ansh666’s change of vote which I missed in counting —-Doncram (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)][reply]

Yes, the close statement goes on to state "There's consensus that this is one list too many. But there are concerns that the lists we have are not the right ones. The redirect preserves the history and allows editors to figure out editorially how to organize these lists such that they make sense to readers and are not redundant." But it has taken a stance for a specific redirect and it has raised difficulty for keeping the AFD'd article instead. The simplest interpretation is not that "the close was not too terribly wrong and it doesn't matter" (my wording), but rather is "the close was wrong and causes difficulties for other editors in making this right". --Doncram (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sorting in List of countries by national capital, largest and second-largest cities doesn't work correctly as some cities appear twice - something that should be fixed before the alphabetical list can be redirected to it, or an alternative would be to redirect to one that sorts correctly. It would be better to wait, as there is a consensus to merge or redirect but discussion is needed to decide which lists to merge, and how to merge them, and there's still the possibility of redirecting the other lists to this one. Actions resulting from AFD consensus don't have to be implemented immediately, that is why Template:Afd-merge to exists. Peter James (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of cities that appear twice? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any that has separate rows for city proper and metropolitan area in the largest or second largest city column, Berlin for example. When sorting the list, the double rows are split. Peter James (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the "List of countries by national capital, largest and second-largest cities", this is getting off-topic from the DRV, which should decide to "Overturn to keep" or should decide "Relist". But okay, to continue the AFD discussion (which some could say is not allowed in this DRV), that article is stupid. What is needed is restoration of a proper list of national capitals, with facts about the national capitals. Not facts about largest other cities, which are not the capitals. We don't want a list of national capitals at a title about "countries" either. The point is to have coverage of the capitals. That list is missnamed for what it is, it is NOT a "by national capital" or "by largest city", it is in fact a "list of countries by alphabetical order which includes names but not any other info about capital cities, largest cities, and second largest cities". Sure it can be sorted differently, so we don't need to add "by alphabetical order" to its title, just like the subject of the AFD did not deserve to get that added to its title in 2012. And what a stupid list-article that one is, with it making some point about covering the size of cities but not including their sizes. If you sort it by "largest" you get those cities in alphabetical order, not by size. Ugh. Again there was a consensus or near-consensus about the original AFD subject, but what to do about that other mess of another article is a different topic. --Doncram (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's a badly designed table. From a database point of view, it's unnormalized. I agree that it's badly titled. I agree that it should be titled, List of national capitals. We should salvage the data but WP:TNT the presentation and turn it into a sane, normalized, table, with, as you say, information about the capitals, which the reader can re-sort by any column on the fly. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I read a consensus that the page was not ok, and the close is well supported by the rough consensus of the discussion. I read the page, and the current target, as attempts to improve navigation. Fairly crude attempts, with a lot of redundancy. Navigation aids are worth working on, the work should continue, nothing has been deleted, and the enduring effect of the close is that redundancy in mainspace is not ok. This is the right outcome. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist There didn't seem to be a consensus on what exactly to do with this page, there was productive conversation which resulted in changed votes, and new comments were still being added right up until the close. I feel this should be relisted to see if a consensus can be reached. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as a valid option given the dissent and confusion on where and what to redirect, a talk page discussion could go on for years ... Atlantic306 (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that there is no perfect redirect target, all of them are imperfect. AfD is not suitable for these complex problems. It will take years, there may never be a perfect solution for navigation aids between similar things. Categories are good but with severe limitations. A general discussion may be had at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. A relisted AfD discussion is not a good place. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are entitled to your opinion but IMHO it is a bit out-of-the-blue, as was the last opinion stated in the AFD (which the closer seized upon to endorse). Continuing the AFD discussion, you see "navigation issues" between the various lists of national capitals or between the national capital articles themselves; I don't think this is what any participants in the AFD saw. Although there is a comment above, here in the DRV, by editor Stifle asserting essentially that no list is needed because a category of national capitals serves just as well in their view. This DRV is not supposed to continue the AFD discussion, but I would strongly disagree with eliminating a national capitals list-article, including because of the arguments given in wp:CLT which you reference (i.e. a list can hold photos and sources and notes, etc.).
  - This DRV should be about the status of the AFD discussion. I thought the AFD included productive discussion that was working, with 5 editors (including two of original 5 delete voters, who changed from "Delete" vote) agreeing that what is needed is a restored article on national capitals, probably to absorb later-split-off lists. It was working. Cutting it off, and refusing to allow it to continue, makes it harder. For example, now you are suggesting discussion cannot succeed, and/or that discussion should continue at the Talk page of a Wikipedia guideline/policy. If the AFD is left closed, the original article effectively does not exist and its Talk page is hard to get to. You and others could argue that any new discussion there, while it happens or after it concluded, is invalid, it should have taken place somewhere else, etc. It is simple to let the AFD continue and to be closed by someone who actually reads the AFD discussion and does not take an "it doesn't matter" view about outcomes, because it does matter to the AFD participants and other editors involved. The priority for the AFD is not to close the AFD for closure's sake. The priority for DRV is not to defend the close with "it was close enough and nothing matters" type reasoning. --Doncram (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bummit – Speedy close. Please see WP:Identifying and using independent sources for why the two sources suggested here are not acceptable, and WP:Notability to understand what notable means in the context of wikipedia. – -- RoySmith (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

In March 2018 the following page was deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bummit

Bummit is a charity hitchhiking society that has been independently run & managed by students from the University of Sheffield since 2003. They are part of the Sheffield RAG (Raising & Giving) society, which falls under the jurisdiction of the University of Sheffield's Students Union. Sheffield RAG is committed to raising funds and offering support to local charities. They are now the world's largest student organised hitch-hiking group, with up to 400 students from the University of Sheffield participating at any one time. They currently run two main events per year, with the aim of getting to a pre-determined location within a given time limit.

I am the staff member who Sheffield Students' Union employs to support the fundraising activities of Bummit and Sheffield RAG.

The reason given for the deletion of the page is that 'No demonstration of notability [can be found]. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources'.

Bummit has it's own website which is regularly updated and which can be found here: http://www.bummit.co.uk/ and both Bummit and RAG have a heavy presence on Sheffield Students' Union's website: https://su.sheffield.ac.uk/get-involved/rag-bummit

These websites and the information they contain act as a demonstration of notability and act as reliable sources of independent in-depth coverage. On this basis, would you please consider reinstating the Wikipedia page? Bummit regularly update their Bummit Wikipedia page and refer to it when running and coordinating fundraising and hitchhiking activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.134.114 (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose neither of those sources are secondary or independent. SportingFlyer talk 18:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, from the above statement it's pretty clear there is a major misunderstanding of what wikipedia's purpose and goals are. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 June 2018

Mangrove Capital Partners – No suggestion that the AfD was closed improperly. DRV is not for re-hashing deletion discussions. – – Joe (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

the page was apparently deleted because the firm isn't notable and page had no independent sources. please reconsider as the firm is highly significant and the page had numerous independent sources. the closing editor will not consider unless i reveal my identity which is quite frankly irrelevant. Allthingsrosy (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody cares about your identity, but when you're editing for pay, as you've already stated, then Wikimedia's terms of use require you to disclose on whose behalf you're editing. —Cryptic 09:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone close this please? We shouldn't be expected to spend volunteer time discussing a decision when the OP is clearly editing against the TOU. The OP is a new SPA created purely for the purpose of promotionally advancing the interests of a commercial entity and ADMINACT doesn't require me to spend my personal time supporting paid editing against the TOU. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 June 2018

Kubi Springer – Bad NAC.G11ed in lieu of overturning:) – ∯WBG^converse 02:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

AfD was closed as no consensus, when the two participants favoured deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've saved us all some time and WP:G11'd it. This was probably a WP:BADNAC, but G11 applies and is faster. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, RoySmith. Looking at the article again after requesting this review, I did think that myself. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Shaddim/Hedgewars – G4 speedy deletion undone. @DGG, Lonehexagon, and Hobit: you (who suggested it) or anybody else can send this to MfD if desired. – Sandstein 18:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recently a draft of an deleted article (Hedgewars) I worked on in my userspace was speedily deleted by an administrator (RHaworth) with the unfitting speedy deletion policy G4 as argument. G4 explicitly encourages drafting in user-space. G4: "This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. It excludes pages [...] content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement" The deleting admin and another admin I talked before for support (JamesBWatson), are unwilling in re-instantiating the draft, despite intensive discussion my outspoken intent and through my edit history proven capability for a constructive work on articles & drafts. Shaddim (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion history of the primary article, Hedgewars (edit: requester initially linked instead to one of the titles created to avoid salting): AFD1, DRV1, AFD2, DRV2. This userspace draft started as an unattributed copy from a deleted revision of the article, and the only edits made to it before deletion were formatting, infobox changes, and an additional external link to www.hedgewars.org. More discussion specific to the draft is at User talk:JamesBWatson#Hedgewars and User talk:RHaworth#Hedgewars; the former especially inclines me to endorse. —Cryptic 07:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It started as unattributed copy as JamesBWatson was unwilling in helping me creating a draft, based on the old article, therefore he is to blame. Shaddim (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second, the deletion discussions (2 it seems) before involved only a small amount of authors & little discussion. The first one was more or less split between keep and delete, not at all a consensus. The second one misses basically any discussion. Therefore, this aggressive enforcement of a non-consensus seems over the top: the article was live for quite some years and is on quite some other WPs: 10 (see the Spanish one) , therefore my assessment in "Hedgewars is one of major open source games and deserve some second look" has some ground. Shaddim (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you Cryptic for informing me and RHaworth of this discussion. For some reason Shaddim did not do so.

This has been deleted at least 10 times (to my knowledge) under different titles. As Cryptic has pointed out, it has been the subject of two AfDs and two deletion reviews (before this one) all of which have ended with the article being deleted, or staying deleted. It has been created as an article again following the last of those four discussions, and deleted again. When an article has been discussed four times and the same conclusion has been reached each time, namely that it should be deleted because of lack of notability, it is not helpful to recreate it without producing new evidence that it is notable. If Shaddim knows of sources that show notability he can easily tell us what those sources are, and then I will be perfectly happy for the article to be re-created; if, on the other hand, he does not know of such sources, then he should not be trying to re-create the article. In the discussion on my talk page four times I asked him to provide evidence of notability, and on no occasion did he either do so or give any answer to my requests. At one point he said that he wanted the deleted article restored so that he could look at the sources in it. I posted the sources to a user space page, which would have served his ostensible purpose perfectly well, but he didn't accept that, and still demanded restoration of the deleted page.

Shaddim has indicated numerous times in different places that he is against virtually any kind of deletion. On his user page he refers to what he calls the "notability policy" and the "reliable sources policy" (actually guidelines) as "infamous". He doesn't want the article deleted. He doesn't care that consensus in four different discussions is that the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, because he doesn't like those standards. (Note: There are many things that I disagree with in various guidelines and policies, including the notability guidelines, but I accept that they are guidelines and policies, and try to stick to them.)

Shaddim gives a selective quote from the speedy deletion policy for criterion G4, omitting to mention the bit that says that the exemption he mentions does not apply to user space copies created to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy. The purpose of speedy deletion criterion G4 is to prevent time being taken up discussing again a page which has already been discussed. When there have been not just one but several discussions on a particular article the need to prevent further timesinking discussion is even greater than after just one discussion, and it is reasonable to require evidence of notability to be provided first. Allowing restoration to user space for improvement is generally a good principle, but it is not reasonable to treat that principle as though it were a solid law that should be applied irrespective of the circumstances, even if the policy said that, which it doesn't.

Nowhere in the talk page discussions about this has Shaddim made any attempt to show that the subject is notable. In his opening statement for this review he has not done so either. I think the deletion should be endorsed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of being virtually against any deletion is a lie. I'm acting very well inside the policies and said I want to improve the article and will consider scrapping the draft if not enough sources can be found. Also, G4 explicitly allows draft, G4 motivates only killing repeatedly recreated articles which got deleted before. You have the G4 policy wrong.Shaddim (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per JamesBWatson. However, show us WP:THREE good sources per WP:NVIDEOGAMES and I'll reconsider. Fair warning: none of the current sources qualify. I'm looking for three sources we haven't seen yet. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How should I find **new** sources if I'm not allowed seeing the old article and/or creating a draft? Also, I want to see some discussion on the wrongly motivated speedy deletion. And, I want to see the policy which don't allow the creation of drafts. Drafts are encouraged and motviated in WP Shaddim (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just being obstinate. For the purposes of knowing what sources were already used, you can look at User:JamesBWatson/Hedgewars sources. You've also already located an archived copy of this off-site; that will give you everything you need. If you want to argue about policy for the sake of arguing about policy, that's one thing. But, claiming you are being prevented from finding better sources is silly. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The webarchive version is very outdated and misses major extensions in reception: in general I believe all authors should be capable of seeing the history of deleted articles; that we have to beg for them is wrong. Shaddim (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn G4 only applies to drafts of AfDed articles in very limited circumstances, and this isn't one of them. G4 does not apply to pages which have been converted to drafts for the purpose of improvement - the wording of the criterion says that very clearly. The OP claims to be doing this, I don't see any evidence that they're lying, and we're supposed to give them the benefit of the doubt anyway. If this was some dodgy SPA then I could understand having reservations, but we're talking about an experienced editor. G4 does apply to pages which have been moved to draft space just to avoid deletion by hosting the article in draft space instead of mainspace, but I don't see any evidence that that's happening here. Whether some admin thinks the draft isn't viable is irrelevant to G4, that kind of decision would have to be made by the community at MfD. The major purpose of G4 is to ensure that AfD results are "sticky" and can't be overturned unilaterally on the whim of one editor. Drafts of AfDed articles don't overturn the AfD result because a draft of an article is very different to an article. Hut 8.5 20:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't figured out if I agree with that or not, but one thing is clear. If we are going to have this as a draft (whether in draft or user space), it's got to be a restored copy of the original, with the editing history intact. What we had in User:Shaddim/Hedgewars was a copy-paste from an external mirror, so the history was lost. That's a non-starter. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. JamesBWatson refused to give me this possibility. (Side note: In general I think deleted articles' history should be always visible (for all authors) and in general (beside controversial manual set exceptions) automatically exportable to user space/draft. That authors are currently dependent on the capriciousness of individual admins is a mistake in the system) Shaddim (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should fix the attribution issue. You don't technically need to restore the deleted article to do that (although it's the preferred option), a list of contributors to the page would be sufficient. Hut 8.5 06:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

overturn and send to MfD This is an IAR deletion. I think speedy deletion is a horrid place for IAR. But this seems like it should probably be deleted and given the history, I have some sympathy for the deleting admin. That said, MfD exists and I can't see why it can't be used in this case. Hobit (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And yes, it should have the whole history. Hobit (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I've said it before and I'll say it again: "(but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)" is too subjective and needs to be removed from G4; removing it would make deletions such as these wholly indefensible. History merge Hedgewars into User:Shaddim/Hedgewars after restoration. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With every respect for your opinion that the relevant policy should be changed, the administrator who closes this discussion should assess the arguments advanced according to policy as it currently exists, and should give little if any weight to arguments based on rejecting current policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: I agree with Hut 8.5's statement that "G4 does not apply to pages which have been converted to drafts for the purpose of improvement - the wording of the criterion says that very clearly. The OP claims to be doing this, I don't see any evidence that they're lying, and we're supposed to give them the benefit of the doubt anyway." — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The community ha sspent enough tyime on it. The cut and past was incorrectly attributed and its supreme process wankery to insist that an admin dfo a history merge and then list at MFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at MfD. The practice of restarting a deleted article as a draft is explicitly permitted. We have a good way to deleted the drafts too if they are hopeless. This is not a policy that should permit shortcuts by IAR, because the ieditor has the right to make at least an effort. The deleted admin either diagrees with the poliy or chooses to ignore it. For deletion policy such as this, no admin has that right, even if having it would sometimes be conbvenient. Yjod od theproper place to deal with such incorrect process. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at MfD. WP:G4 states it does not apply to "content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement". That seems to describe this draft. WP:MFD would be the most appropriate place to discuss this deletion as it's specifically meant to be where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 June 2018

Gina Ortiz Jones – "Redirect" outcome changed to "no consensus". – Sandstein 18:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This deletion review was closed as Redirect, yet I don't believe there was a consensus to redirect. Of the 16 total votes, there were 9 Keeps, 5 Redirects, and 2 Deletes. When I spoke to the closing administrator, they said the "Redirect" side had stronger arguments. However, 6 of the 9 Keep votes listed an official policy guideline as their reasoning, while only 2 of the 5 Redirect votes mentioned a policy guideline. Additionally, the article was greatly improved with more sources during the course of the discussion, and the 6 votes after the improvements were 5 Keeps and 1 Redirect. I believe this AFD should either be Relisted to gain further consensus, or closed as No Consensus. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I abstain from voting on deletion reviews on AfDs for which I've been a participant, but I agree with the result - basically a nine-to-seven when deletes are included. There wasn't a consensus to keep (as I noted in my argument on the page, several Keep votes noted/insinuated the AfD could be deleted if she were to lose the election, which isn't how notability works - specifically votes by Komitsuki, Kierzek and JaxisMaximus), there definitely wasn't a consensus to delete, and we typically redirect articles on most candidates who aren't otherwise notable on promotion, news, and recentism concerns. SportingFlyer talk 20:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to keep There was no consensus to redirect (even counting the delete !votes) and frankly HouseOfChange has the policy right--NPOL specifically defers to the GNG and says that if the person meets the GNG they meet the inclusion criteria. Now, we can imagine we'd get overly local sources supporting every candidate anywhere. But that strawman doesn't matter here, she has plenty of national-level coverage. (Correctly) arguing that some of the !votes to keep were wrong on policy isn't hugely relevant when nearly all those arguing to delete/redirect were relying on an essay or their thoughts on what policy should say (that those only known in the context of being a political candidate shouldn't get an article) rather than the actual policy as written. Hobit (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, NPOL does not "defer" to GNG. Candidates do not clear GNG just because media coverage of the campaign exists — media coverage of every election campaign always exists, so if campaign coverage were enough in and of itself to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL, then every candidate would always be exempted from having to pass NPOL. Campaign coverage makes a candidate a WP:BLP1E, not a ten-year test-passing topic of enduring notability, so it does not get a candidate over GNG in lieu of failing NPOL — a candidate only clears GNG if either (a) she already cleared GNG for other reasons before becoming a candidate, or (b) she's got a credible claim to being a special case, because her campaign coverage has exploded so far beyond the range of what's merely expected for every candidate in every election to always have (i.e. Christine O'Donnell) that even if she loses this fall she'll still be notable in 2028 anyway. But neither of those things are true here. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It literally says: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Of course, BLP1E is a thing, but "being a political candidate" is not a single event any more than "being an actor" is a single event. Hobit (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An election campaign is an event for the purposes of BLP1E. An event is not just an incident that happens at a single moment in time — a process, such as an election campaign or a criminal trial which unfolds over several weeks, is still an event. An election campaign does not escape BLP1E just because it unfolds over several weeks and may comprise coverage of several discrete incidents of election speeches and public statements and controversies and the like — the whole shebang is still a single event no matter how many separate times her supporters hold rallies. Being an election candidate is not an occupation in and of itself, which is why your comparison to "being an actor" does not wash. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The close was appropriate and within the discretion of the closer. --Enos733 (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think "No consensus" is more accurate. I note that the article contained substantial sourced content, and the redirect is to a section without prose, and so, prose content wise, it was a definite Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection, which is harsh. Very broadly, it was a case of WP:BIO1E, which envisions coverage of the person in the context of the event, but now there is no coverage, me calling table coverage non-coverage. WP:NPOL and failed candidates not being notable by default, OK maybe, in general, by default, but this was a runner-up candidate and the recipient of plenty of coverage. The coverage includes commentary outside of the election, although the coverage only happened because of the election. Definitely borderline. It was a harsh call (consensus to pseudo-delete) by the closer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep or no-consensus This is an example of our very variable decisions on exactly the same situations=-dince this is an election year, there are quite a few of these. Persoqnlly I have always felt that in practice all candidates in a two party system like the US who win a major party's nomination for a national level office, such as Re[resentative in Congress, should have an article. Doing anything else is a measure of who happens to participate, along wit the extenst of searching for sources, the variable judgements about independence of sourcing, and the unetermiined question of whether Oneevent applies to a national level political event/ Even the redirect !votes said (for example) " There is a lot of coverage for this individual" , but said it related only to the lection--Ithink that'sselfcontradictory to the intent . It's time for some rationality. Perhaps the best way of handling this is to wait until there's a little morecoverage as we get to the elction, and the add it and restore, with the argument that the coverage relates to TWO events, hjer campaign in the primary, and the campaign in the gneeral election. I wish I had the time to do this with all the similar articles, but I will support any one who does. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. I ivoted keep and still view that as a legitimate analysis of the sources and policy. However I’m aware a significant minority of editors saw it differently, so as a matter of summarizing the AfD as a whole, I thought that was enough to call into question consensus to keep. What I did not see consensus for (either in the two consecutive AfDs or policy) is the idea of national-level election-related coverage being disqualified for GNG (and therefore the entry isn’t notable and should be redirected). I see some people, including the closer, thinking that coverage should be disqualified, but roughly as many saying it’s not, and no established policy to support the former, as Hobit points out. So actually I guess I do think keep had the stronger argument in policy, but enough people disagreed about what policy should be that I’d be inclined to be conservative and say no consensus. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus since I don't see a clear consensus to redirect and these candidates can be notable. Relisting the AfD is another option here. We should not disqualify election coverage in arguments for notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we should, because election coverage always exists for every election. If coverage in the campaign context were all it took to say that a candidate had cleared GNG and was thus exempted from having to pass NPOL, then no candidate would ever fail GNG at all. So then we would always have to keep an article about every election candidate, and NPOL would automatically no longer have any meaning or application whatsoever. And anyway, principles like WP:BLP1E and the ten-year test still apply regardless of where anybody stands on the question of whether campaign coverage should be enough or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't directly relevant to the issue here, but we probably need to have a notability discussion for candidates somewhere as similar discussions are currently ongoing over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians with varied results. SportingFlyer talk 15:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did some searching - there are a couple recent discussions (2017 and one that appears still open) discussing the notability of political candidates. I'd argue the close was consistent with this policy view. [2] [3] SportingFlyer talk 18:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. We have an established consensus that if an election candidate was not already notable enough for an article for other reasons before becoming a candidate, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. And as I've explained above in response to a couple of people, the existence of some campaign-related coverage is not in and of itself to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL on the grounds that the campaign coverage has gotten her over GNG in lieu, because every candidate always gets enough campaign coverage to make that claim — so if we go with that interpretation instead of the existing consensus, then no candidate for anything is ever non-notable anymore and NPOL is automatically dead. Under the consensus as it actually stands, to get over GNG on campaign coverage alone a candidate would have to show that her coverage has exploded far out of scope with what every candidate gets, to the point that even if she loses this fall she'll still be notable ten years from now anyway — but the sourcing wasn't showing a credible reason why Gina Ortiz Jones passes that test yet. Of course the article can be recreated on or after election day if she wins — but nothing in the article constituted a credible reason why her candidacy has already made her permanently notable. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We pretty clearly do not have an established consensus that if an election candidate was not already notable enough for an article for other reasons before becoming a candidate, then she has to win the election to become notable. Your O'Donnell example is one good index of this. All the keep votes in the two AfDs on this topic is another. I understand disagreement about where to draw the line on how much coverage is required before a candidate actually satisfies WP:BLP1E (which says we should only exclude biographies if all three of its criteria are met). But it's not consensus that campaign coverage is disqualified for GNG and only election can establish politician notability. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christine O'Donnell is an unusual case, whose campaign coverage exploded to the point that she actually has a longer and better sourced article than the actual senator she lost to does — she got so much coverage that almost a full decade later, her name is still more readily recognizable to most people than Chris Coons' is. We most certainly do have a consensus that in normal circumstances, a candidate does not clear GNG on campaign coverage alone — in all but the most extreme special cases, a candidate must either win the election to become notable as a politician, or already have had enough preexisting notability to have qualified for an article for other reasons besides the candidacy anyway. A candidate only gets over GNG on campaign coverage per se if her campaign coverage explodes to Christine O'Donnell proportions, which this isn't even close to — if she neither wins the election nor has any preexisting notability for other reasons, then the campaign coverage only makes her notable in and of itself if it gets her out of the Wikipedia is not a news outlet camp and into the people will still be looking for this article ten years from now camp all by itself, which the overwhelming majority of candidates' campaign coverage does not.
As I already noted above, every candidate in every election always has some campaign coverage by definition — so if "some campaign coverage exists" were all it took to make a candidate notable in and of itself, then every candidate would always be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. But we have a consensus that every candidate is not always notable enough for a Wikipedia article — which means that the notability test for a candidate to become notable specifically because of her campaign coverage itself, without having preexisting notability for other reasons or actually winning the election in the end, is not "some campaign coverage exists" (a test which no candidate would ever fail at all), but "a Christine O'Donnell-esque volume of campaign coverage exists". Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pauline Pearce – Moot. See my longer comments in the body. – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry, went ahead and readded. The original page describing Pauline Pearce was closed on 9 September 2011; it described her video and it was agreed that the page would be merged into the 2011 England riots page. Given her subsequent political activism, I've made a biographical page. Will remove and revert to original redirect if that is the consensus. Matt 190417 (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did not realise previous page had existed and was closed, hence reason I went ahead. Matt 190417 (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I !voted "merge" in the AfD based on essentially WP:BLP1E and WP:CRYSTAL concerns. We're almost seven years down the line now, so it's entirely possible those are no longer relevant (I haven't got time to check right now) so a bio article might be appropriate. If the article does exist it is definitely the right target for the Heroine of Hackney redirect, if it doesn't it should be pointed back to wherever she is mentioned in the riots article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Her political career would fail WP:NPOL on its own. The question is whether there's enough across her whole life to satisfy WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I could really say is she's covered extensively in sources, which go some way to meet WP:NPOL, although I agree it'd fail. I agree on its own, her political career would fail, as would her prominence in the viral video on its own (although there was a fairly even split in the AfD between keep and merge). Her knife crime activism, restaurant businesses and singing/radio career also fail notability.

The combination of them all? If Duwayne Brooks and Harini Iyengar have their own entries, Pearce might have a good case. Matt 190417 (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific action that's being requested here? Please see WP:DRVPURPOSE. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". I didn't realise the page was deleted and am more or less asking for retroactive permission to reopen, given new sources from her political career... Matt 190417 (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. We generally don't review seven year old deletions. The general rule is that if a significant period of time has passed (seven years certainly qualifies) and you can write a good article that you believe addresses the issues raised at the AfD, then you're good to go ahead and do so without seeking permission. I'm going to close this as moot. If anybody feels the recreated article still doesn't pass muster, please bring it to WP:AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 June 2018

15 June 2018

Kevin De Clue – Endorse / Delete image. The deletion of Kevin De Clue via AfD is endorsed. Additionally, I'll delete File:KevinDeClue.jpg – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

To Whom it may concern. My name is Kevin DeClue and I am a multi platinum music producer songwriter. There was an article written about me that described how I went from a small band to writing two huge songs and producing two huge songs with Hilary Duff. We wrote these together and they were very successful. It also spoke of my work with Charlie Midnight who worked with Whitney Houston, James Brown, and many others. The person that voted it down Mckennagene did not do this because they felt I wasn't legitimate. They did it for other reasons. I know because after this take down they personally put up an old picture of my years ago saying " Singing at a dive bar in San Mateo. So me being #2 on the Billboards charts is not a big enough deal but me singing at a bar is? You can obviously tell this person is harboring ill feelings towards me. Here is the link to the site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KevinDeClue.jpg I know because if you go on this link and see contributor hit that button and it brings you to Mckennagene site. Scroll down and you see that it was the same person that put up the bar pic, that voted down my actual legitimate article. Now they took that down on their site but I save it. and it is copy and pasted below. Here is the Hilary Duff Wiki that clearly states my name. Hilary and Haley wrote very few songs and I was one of the only people they ever wrote with. Here is the linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Duff_(album). I don't mind being taken down, but its for being a non notable musician ad then a bar pic of me from 20 years ago is allowed to be put up then it's slander. Its not right and I deserve a fair look at what happening. Its effecting my career and my personal life. Below is the copy past I got from the bottom of Mckenngene page. I am not a non notable musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeClue Kevin (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

Proposed deletion of Kevin De Clue[edit] Ambox warning yellow.svg The article Kevin De Clue has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable musician While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensusfor deletion. Chase (talk

Nomination of Kevin De Clue for deletion[edit]

This is a courtesy message to notify you that the article Kevin De Clue is being considered for deletion. All editors, including you, are welcome to discuss this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin De Clue until a consensus is reached. The nomination and discussion are expected to focus on the quality of evidence and the policies and guidelines which are of concern. Please be aware that there are a number of arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion.

Users are encouraged to edit the article during the discussion, particularly in ways that address the concerns raised in that discussion. However, please do not attempt to remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article— doing so may be considered an act of bad faith and will not halt the deletion process. Thank you! Chase(talk | contributions) 00:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Endorse Unless I'm missing something, the person who uploaded the photo has not been active for two years and is not the same person who brought the article to AfD. And the picture certainly can be deleted too.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DeClue Kevin: I'll happily delete the image (which should've been done when the article was deleted) once this deletion review is closed. Withdrawing your undeletion request will expedite the process; otherwise, it's likely to take a week or more. —Cryptic 04:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but draftify on request. DeClue Kevin, this was not deleted via the proposed deletion mechanism, nor by only one person, but after a consensus discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin De Clue. The article as it stood cited only two sources. One was to the subject's own web site, the other was to a brief profile of his work with a band, and said nothing about his work as a producer. The article didn't come close to establishing to subject's notability, and an editor performed a WP:BEFORE search for additional sources and was not able to find any useful ones. Moreover, the article as it stood was rather promotional (internationally known and has made his mark in the music industry, for example). This was simply not an acceptable Wikipedia article as it stood. If sources about DeClue exist that would satisfy the criteria at WP:NMUSIC or at the WP:GNG, then a valid article could perhaps be created. It would need to be factual and neutral and clearly establish notability. Note that Wikipedia uses "notable" in a rather special way. Can you present several independent published reliable sources that discuss DeClue or his work in some detail? If not, there is no point in going on with this. Ifd so, someone other than you should write the article, see our guideline on autobiography. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think there's a misunderstanding here - Mckennagene created your page, and there was a notice posted to his page that the page he created was up for deletion. I also don't see any sign of secondary sources to create an article that would pass AfD. There wasn't anything wrong with the AfD, and we can get the photo deleted, as noted above. SportingFlyer talk 20:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, delete the photo File:KevinDeClue.jpg, advise Kevin De Clue to read Wikipedia:Autobiography, which says in short "Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

14 June 2018

13 June 2018

12 June 2018

List of non-US places that have a US place named after them – Keep closure endorsed. —Cryptic 06:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

copy-pasted from jo4n's talk page. They have not responded since I posted this two weeks ago. j04n recently closed the AfD for List of non-US places that have a US place named after them as keep. However, its Canadian companion article was also nominated with the same rationale, but it was closed as delete (albeit after some relistings). The closing admin noted the keep arguments (virtually identical to the ones on the US page) "were pretty weakly argued" and didn't "address the policy-based arguments made for deletion". One of the relisting admins commented "Despite popular sentiment, there's really no policy-based arguments so far (same as the previous AfD, which really shouldn't have been closed as such).". What gives? Tera TIX 12:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse There were two Keep votes and no Delete votes after being relisted twice. It may have been nice to relist one more time to see if it were possible to get additional votes and further determine consensus, but the original closing decision looks like it was sound based on the discussion. There was some discussion about renaming, which the closer noted, but no one voted delete after two weeks. AfDs are judged by community consensus, not based on how similar AfDs have gone. I don't see a reason to overturn the decision. Lonehexagon (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There's no possible way this could have been closed as delete, so this review is pointless. Suggest you wait a few months per Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion and renominate if you still feel strongly about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not terrible if there's an article on this subject, but it does seem inconsistent if the same !votes are made and one article is deleted and the other is kept, especially when two admins concur the !votes were not policy-based. Tera TIX 05:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the other AfD, but if it were nominated here and had the same votes and rationales as this AfD, I'd likely vote to keep that article, too. The point of AfDs is to determine community consensus. Lonehexagon (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My endorsement here is based on process. But, taking a step back, I certainly agree that it's just plain dumb for us to have different outcomes for List of non-Canadian places that have a Canadian place named after them and List of US places named for non-US places. Are there other lists of non-Foo places that have a Foo place named after them? If so, maybe bundle them all up and run an RFC to get wider (and consistent) input? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:Articles for deletion/List of non-Canadian cities with a Canadian namesake was a clear "keep" with a recommendation to change the article's title. This seems to have happened leading to the "delete" at WP:Articles for deletion/List of non-Canadian places that have a Canadian place named after them referred to above. Thincat (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I fundamentally disagree with the existence of the article (per WP:LC items 2, 6, and 10) the deletion discussion could not reasonably have been closed any other way and I must endorse it. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a clear keep, the other AFD close seems questionable. Another AFD in just a few months would most probably have the same result, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Couldn't have been closed any other way. WP:RENOM is an option, but the closers suggestion to to have a talk page discussion about re-titling (I guess that includes re-scoping) should be done first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As the compiler of this list, I feel I should add my bit. As for renaming it, no one seemed interested in discussing that, so I renamed it anyway. Perhaps I was wrong to do that, but a few people seem to have problems understanding the previous name, so a more straightforward name seemed advisable.

As for other lists on this topic, the only ones are for the US and Canada. And they're the only two countries where it makes sense to compile such a list. The massive immigration from Europe during their settlement/town-forming era resulted in places named for a wide variety of foreign towns. No other countries had such heavy immigration during that time.

The extended discussion on the Canadian list did have one positive effect: it inspired me to add a fair amount of text to the lede of this list showing the significance of the list. On thinking it over, I realize that more could be done for that and I should get to that shortly. So if someone does want to propose deletion in a few months, please reread the article beforehand. Perhaps you'll change your mind. Dtilque (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but whatever content you add to the article is irrelevant (in terms of notability) if you can't find any sources covering the topic in general as a set (per WP:LISTN) . I see sources covering etymologies of place names in specific states; I see sources covering etymologies of specific place names; but I don't see any sources covering US place names of foreign origin. Tera TIX 04:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 June 2018

Draft:Vascon Engineers – salting endorsed; draft is significantly similar to previously-deleted versions of the article. – Primefac (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Altered draft (not the original article) seems suitable to pass AfC pending a *significant* Paid COI discussion and thus needs unsalting. The article itself only seems to be significantly promo by existing (similar to most company articles). It has some good sources and I believe it would be beneficial. However there is a slightly confusing area about the user and them potentially being blocked. The Draft Creating IP isn't blocked. However they created the talk page to declare a paid COI. Another user notifies them they should create an account, and a Second IP responds in line with being the same person. That IP is later blocked and then receives a year ban for block evasion.

Now it seems reasonable that they are the same users (they are clearly in a fairly close IP block) but I can't actually confirm it. The non-blocked IP did some Paid COI notification but didn't do the whole process.

One other user made an appreciable content contribution.

There was a short discussion at AfC Talk on the topic that gave mixed views about whether the user's (potential?) status meant automatic refusal of the draft. The Admin (notified) was against unsalting here without a DRV.

I believe WP:NCORP is satisfied and that any promo presence is minimal enough not to prohibit article creation. It is only this creator COI issue that seems a major potential issue.

I apologise for DRV formatting errors - I've not linked to the AfD etc because I'm not challenging the prior decisions. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Query - Please let me know if it would be deemed canvassing to make a neutral link to the DRV at the AfC chat Nosebagbear (talk)

I added a link there. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted the text of this version is essentially identical to the contents of the previously deleted version in mainspace (I appreciate that the OP isn't an admin and can't see this), and it's written by someone who is almost certainly a block-evading sock of the previous creator. If moved to mainspace it would qualify for speedy deletion under G5. We shouldn't be bending over backwards to make things easier for block-evading sockmasters with COIs. Hut 8.5 18:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep salted. As Hut points out, the current draft (including the references) is virtually identical to the draft which was WP:G11'd and upheld in an previous review. The similarity is close enough that a WP:G4 deletion of the draft would be justified. Suggest the draft be deleted and salted as well. The previous DRV close said, this promo ring has already sucked away too much volunteer time. Surely that is even more true now. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking more about this. There's two basic schools of thought. One is that we should WP:DENY paid spammers the realization of their goals. The other is that, as Legacypac points out at the AfC chat, that it's the article, not the author, that's important. I don't agree 100% with either side, but I'm much closer to the DENY end of the spectrum. Be that as it may, let's look at the article, and Legacypac's WP:LISTED argument. LISTED says, Consensus has been that notability is not automatic, so I looked at the references. What I'm mostly seeing is routine business announcements of acquisitions, stock price movements, customer contract signings, quarterly earnings. These all fall into WP:NCORP's Examples of trivial coverage cases. So, even if we ignore the COI, and any promotional language, I still don't think this meets NCORP. My standard offer applies; point out the two or three but no more best sources, and I'll take a closer look at them. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vascon/Pricol joint venture, SEBI and insider trading, Residential project's effect on shares. In my view there are probably 5 reasonable or good sources, obviously with some overlap in provider Nosebagbear (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Standard is the easiest to evaluate. It's routine coverage of a stock price move. It even says, This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.
The Hindu is also routine coverage. There was an announcement that the company was being investigated, and this is little more than boilerplate coverage of that, with some quotes from the company's press release (the same quotes were picked up my many other papers).
Business Line is again just routine coverage of an announcement of a joint real estate investment.

All of these fall under the Examples of trivial coverage clause of WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleted I can only see the sources provided, but they don't seem to be good enough to undelete/unsalt this article. SportingFlyer talk 23:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In some sense you can dismiss almost all coverage as routine around companies, barring some crazy scandal. The issue is that public companies generate regular sustained coverage. With usually thousands or hundreds od thousands of direct shareholders and many more indirect shareholders via pension and mutual funds, there are many people interested in public co's and there is a public interest served by providing coverage of public companies. Public co's tend to have many employees and other stakeholders as well. Getting a company listed in a significant undertaking involving a lot of regulatory filings. Directors and officers have to report insider trading and on it goes. This is why pretty much ever Listed company is notable. If we just allow a page normal editors will keep it in check and we don't have to fight the creation. I just had another public company I approved and another editor we t off accusing the creator of undisclosed COI and paid editing on a page that was just factual and well referenced. Turns out the poor new editor worked for a unrelated landscaping company, was not being paid and decided to write up this public company that is based in his hometown where they are understandably famous. So yes if the topic is notable and the promo fixible letting the page through is the right move. Legacypac (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For those wondering how this draft compares to the version we just all-but-unanimously endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 April 26, I've compared the first revision of the draft to the last nonblank revision of the deleted mainspace article. They're identical, except for changes to the infobox (removal of File:Vascon Logo.png, addition of ISIN, incorrectly linking R. Vasudevan instead of R. Vasudevan (entrepreneur), and shortening the links to CEO, CFO, and MD in key_people), unfixing some typos in the first paragraph, changing one sentence from "The company develops residential, commercial, malls and hotel projects in different parts of India, including Pune, Nashik, Hyderabad, Chennai, Mumbai and Coimbatore, and other Indian cities." to "The company is active in multiple sectors including IT Parks, Malls & Multiplexes, Residential, Industrial, Hospitality and Community Welfare Centers.", removing the 25em parameter from {{Reflist}}, and removing {{India-company-stub}}. Subsequent changes aren't much more substantial. —Cryptic 00:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep salted. If I have understood correctly, the request is to unsalt the page in order to allow the new draft to be moved to the title, not to undelete the originally posted article. The page has been twice deleted and failed a previous DRV. The current draft is virtually identical to the last deleted article. The draft author has made no attempt whatsoever to address the concerns that led to deletion. On the contrary, the draft is a step backwards because it has lost the typo fixes and copyedits done by independent editors. There is therefore no merit whatsoever in posting this draft. SpinningSpark 20:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PCOI Clarification given then - just wanted to note that clarification of PCOI means I'm happy to withdraw (huge amount more on sources which I am unsure with, but given multiple grounds that disagreement seems a little moot). There was a desalt !vote, so I won't just remove it - additionally because I've no idea whether eds can withdraw even unianimous DRVs like AfDs can be, so this is just a personal !vote change Nosebagbear (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 June 2018

9 June 2018

Freelance talents – Deletion endorsed, recreation declined. – Sandstein 09:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

New links, citations since deletion of article 2 years ago that would justify recreating the deleted page. Keratao (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DO you have those new references like a few links or are we just supposed to guess? --81.108.53.238 (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Few examples - [4] (Article on new comics by Freelance Talents), [5] (Article on Fourth Annual ICF Awards organized by Freelance Talents), [6] (Review - Kathputli short film by Freelance Talents), [7] (Vacuumed Sanctity Comic by Freelance Talents short review), [8] (Peripheral Angel comic by Freelance Talents short review), [9] (Hindi Article on Kavya Comics, a type of Comics Poetry series by Freelance Talents), [10] (Kathputli movie Hindi Review), In addition, following websites list Freelance Talents as a publisher and production company (only accept proofs of published material and/or released movie before approving a listing for publication on website) [11] - Comicbook, [12] [13] - imdb, [14] comicvine.

Endorse deletion. I took a look at some of the sources above and didn't get the impression this meets WP:NCORP. I'm willing to take another look, but please read WP:ORGCRIT and list the two or three, no more sources which you think best meet the requirements. If you do that, I'm willing to take a closer look at those. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and oppose recreation--Rubbish sourcing.Period.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the article is identical to the version deleted at AFD, and the new refs aren't substantially different in character or reliability from the previous ones. Endorse. —Cryptic 17:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 June 2018

WISE J2000+3629 – Restored on request as a contested prod. (These usually get a faster response at WP:REFUND.) That said, the templating on the page is very out of date, so much so that the article is functionally broken; please fix it promptly, or I'll move it into draftspace. —Cryptic 08:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

WISE J2000+3629 is one of the only objects within 20 light years of the sun without a corresponding wikipedia article (see Template:Star systems within 15–20 light-years for what I mean). It was proposed for deletion by @Stringtheory11: and completed by User:Rjd0060 1 week later. Unfortunately, the former seems to only be sporadically active, and the latter has not come online a single time since 2016. Furthermore, WISE J2000+3629 is one of the nearest T-dwarfs to the sun, something around the closest 20. Considering it was only deleted due to no responses, it has a very weak case for deletion anyway. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doria Ragland – "Keep" outcome endorsed, with a note to Drmies that this AfD should not have been closed prematurely. – Sandstein 09:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is about a person who does not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements for inclusion. While her daughter is notable, notability is not transferable and Wikipedia is not the news. For those arguing keep, please read WP:N and make arguments based on policy and not opinion. The subject’s coverage is entirely related to her daughter and her daughter’s wedding and she herself is not the primary subject of any references unconnected with those topics. The first debate never established a reason to keep the article based in Wikipedia policy, I strongly encourage the closing admin to ignore what is bound to be a large number of popularity votes for keep that are not based in policy. From my perspective this is an obvious delete when looking at Wikipedia’s notability requirements. 219.79.126.90 (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist for the full seven days. With plenty of contributions on both sides, a SNOW close was plainly inappropriate. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse WP:INHERITED says "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." So, as the nominator here says, we need to meet WP:GNG requirements but we do not need to investigate whether the source material was written merely because the person has a famous relative. Are there multiple, independent, reliable, substantial sources? Even if there are, WP:BLP1E says we should not have an article when three other conditions all apply. In the present case WP:BLP1E #3 does not apply if the event was significant and the individual's role was well documented. So, cogent "keep" arguments can be made and are not a priori to be dismissed as "not based in policy". At AFD were "keep" arguments made within these constraints and did they constitute a consensus? The closer thought so and I agree. Perhaps the nominator here could have come to the same understanding if they had asked the closer. As for the early close, I think it was OK-ish under the circumstances but I would not object to reopening it now things have calmed down a bit. Thincat (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original closing decision. ~~Maintain current article or merge to Family of Meghan Markle My first vote is to keep the current article, but summarizing and merging content to the family article is a second-best option.~~ I understand the GNG and BLP issues and normally I would be right there with you (such as my nomination to delete the article on the mother of Rudy Guliani, which essentially was just a restatement of family information from his early life section). In this case, though, there are a lot of the hits to the article. As of today, there have been 2.2 million hits and although the interest rate has dropped significantly, there are still 3K+ hits each day. In addition, her relationship with her mother, and the way she was raised, provides insight into her interests in charitable causes and significance of being the first African-American Duchess in the royal family. Why would we delete what has been a very popular article, per WP:COMMONSENSE and a smidge of WP:Ignore all rules.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated my vote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. The review text above does not clearly state which of the five reasons at WP:DRVPURPOSE is being claimed, and does not appear to have followed point 1 of the instructions at WP:DELREVD: Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before deletion review. See Purpose. This review request looks more like trying to keep fighting for deletion (see "Deletion review should not be used" points 1, 2, 5). --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse both because the close was reasonable, and because this nomination fails WP:DRVPURPOSE #5. This was open for 5 days and it was abundantly obvious this was never going to get closed as delete. There was a lot of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on, but there was also enough reasonable policy-based arguments on both sides that the overwhelming numerical headcount could be taken as consensus to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Even though I voted delete, the majority was not in my favor. It clearly wasn't a SNOW keep though. I'm still in favor of a Family of MM article though instead of one for her mom. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist to AfD: The AfD doesn't have a clear consensus on whether to keep or delete the article. WP:SNOW is not appropriate to close the discussion. We should have more input. --B dash (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The close was reasonable and the OP doesn't raise any procedural issues. Andrew D. (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Sensible close, I do not think it is even ~~reasonably~~ remotely possible that a clear consensus for deletion could have arisen by that point, leaving the article retained in any case. --joe decker ^talk 17:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't believe this was a snow keep and the conversation should have been allowed to play out fully. However, it seems basically impossible this would have resulted in a delete even if allowed to go the full week, so I don't see any reason to overturn the vote. Lonehexagon (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I would have preferred that this not be SNOW closed, as there were significant views to delete being expressed. However, as the discussion stood, it could not have reasonably been closed as other than "keep". "Passes the GNG" is a strong policy argument, and it was not really refuted by those favorign delete. BLP1E pretty clearly does not apply, there may be only one reason but it is a continuing one, not a single event. Once the world takes not of a person, that person is notable. To some extent notability is inherited, it is jsut not automatically inherited. In any case begin related to a famous person does not prevent notability, and one can be notable not for any significant achievement, but just for being famous. We may not like that, but it is true, and Wikipedia must reflect that fact. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep, but the snow description was incorrect, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:WikiProject Music – Deletion endorsed. —Cryptic 05:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

IMHO, no consensus (which defaults to keep) was reached on a discussion that was relisted twice, two people voted delete and two people voted against delete. Jax 0677 (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my closing statement, which I stand by, there's a (somewhat) more detailed explanation at my talkpage. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, reminding the nominator that the discussion is WP:NOTAVOTE, which is what the rationale seems to hinge on. Jax was the only one that wanted keep. There was another !vote for deprecate, but Plastikspork explained why that was unnecessary. Finally, I do believe that Amory's explanation is correct and sufficient. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was only one Keep vote after 3 weeks, and after being relisted twice, no one else seemed willing to discuss it further. Considering the project itself wanted to get rid of it, I think it was fair to close as delete. If there was even one more Keep vote, it might be different. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 June 2018

6 June 2018

5 June 2018

Joseph Kevin Bracken – 2015 deletion endorsed, but recreation allowed. We are not normally relisting three-year-old discussions. – Sandstein 18:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this was a poor close as it's clear there was no consensus. The closer completely ignored that someone found info as to why J. K. Bracken himself was notable, including the detail from the book about his son that there was considerable reference to him in Irish newspapers (which I also found via britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk), understandable as the co-founder of the Gaelic Athletic Association, in addition to being a monumental sculptor[15] and political figure in Tipperary. The closer's rationale was that people saying it should be deleted were citing Wiki guidelines on notability by inheritance, but that's only relevant if the subject is not otherwise notable. It appears they failed to actual look for any reference to him being notable himself and the closer did not take this possibility into account. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a three year old AfD. Does a review have any point? Standard procedure is that anybody can create a new version of the article, as long as it addresses the issues raised at the prior AfD. Go forth and edit. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why a deleted article on someone who died 100+ years ago should have to be entirely recreated. He has not increased in notability since the AFD that (I feel) was inappropriately closed as delete. The reason the article was nominated was the mistaken assumption that his notability came from his son. A person who bothered to actually look him up found info on his own notability yet was ignored. That's a faulty close. I am happy to improve the article, but the people who originally created and worked on the article should have their work restored. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The participants in the AfD found the sources wanting. If you're willing to find better sources, I'd certainly have no objection to userfying the existing text so you can work on it and then move it back to mainspace once you've added better sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undelete due to new information. The AfD was not about a deceased outstanding jurist. [16]. Usually try WP:REFUND for things like this.~~ --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was not about a deceased outstanding jurist, either. And while the source you (both) link is, it contains all of a dozen words about this person. There's nothing in the nomination here that was not in the article at the time of deletion. —Cryptic 00:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, Donal Barrington is obviously notable and I got them mixed up reading sources. Nevertheless, I read the AfD as having a very weak consensus to delete, and find many sources on this Joseph Kevin Bracken (1852–1904), an historic person with multiple notable descendants and a defining relationship with the History of the Gaelic Athletic Association. User:Kraxler's 19:37, 5 July 2015 !vote was strong and not countered. The "delete" close was a stretch. If Wikimandia (talk · contribs) want to have a go at it, let him. Undelete. I note the multiple incoming redlinks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Request temp undelete, as we are talking about what was in the article at the time of the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tempundelete done. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks. At AfD, I would !vote "keep". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow recreation from the previous version (which was rather feeble). Although I don't like the close I think it was within discretion. I feel a bit vexed when closers say things like "policy compliant" in reference to notability. It suggests a lack of understanding of the basis of our notability guidelines. But maybe it was just a momentary lapse. Thincat (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation - not the best written article, but there have certainly got to be many more sources out there given his various positions. Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I don't see that a consensus to delete was reached in the original AFD. Relisting as a new AfD would allow for more thorough discussion and the ability for the community to come to a consensus. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation I would advise restoring the previous version and moving it to draft space pending the citation of additional and bette sources, but it soen't have to be done that way. It could be restarted from scratch. i would still advise starting in draft, but that is optional, except for unconfirmed users. I see no need to review the long-ago AfD at this time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I clicked through the sources in the article and one of the book sources is actually pretty solid and include significant discussion about the subject.[17]. I did a Google search and was able to find more sources which I believe increases the subject's claim to notability, and adds to the argument to undelete or relist the article.[18][19][20][21][22] Lonehexagon (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 June 2018

3 June 2018

2 June 2018

Draft:History of Thailand since 2001 – Close overturned, discussion reopened per Criteria 1 and 2 – Primefac (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was closed by a very involved editor. It was closed on the grounds that the draft's author had requested userfication. What was actually written was But since clearly no one else is interested in contributing, and its existence in Draft space is deemed so harmful, just move it under my user page if you must. I don't think that quite counts as a request to userfy. In any case this page, like all Wikipedia pages, belongs to the community, which can decide where it belongs. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist: "just move it under my user page if you must" is not necessarily a request for userfication (the author was clearly disheartened by the nomination). Even if it were, the community had expressed very strongly that the draft should be kept in the draftspace. The closer was clearly involved and actually bludgeoned the discussion, which expressly shows that their close was not impartial. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and, I guess, relist. I suppose it complies with the letter of the law but this seems like a spurious nomination, part of the current bloodthirst for deleting drafts. User:Paul_012 has been contributing good articles since 2006, what's the huge rush to force him to finish this article? I concur that User:Hasteur had no business closing a deletion discussion which he himself had nominated. That does not fly in any deletion forum and never has. A Train^talk 18:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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