the page shows significant coverage in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see external links to SF Chronicle and LA Times articles). Originally inserted by User:UltraEdit 22:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion review was suggested at AfC, but considering this was last deleted almost a decade ago, I fail to see how deletion review is relevant to the discussion, or what exactly we're supposed to be reviewing here. Just because an article was deleted doesn't mean we have to go through a deletion review process when it's at AfC. Furthermore the LA Times and SF Chronicle articles go a long way towards demonstrating notability. SportingFlyerT·C 00:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to emphatically agree with SportingFlyer. AfC is designed to be a lightweight process and making an editor go through a DRV to recreate is poor form, as is having one editor decline multiple consecutive submissions especially when there was, looking at the edit history, work done after the first decline. If this topic is not ready for mainspace so be it. If it is ready then it should just be accepted, no DRV necessary. There is sometime after an AfD when a recreation with substantially changed material should be allowed, no bureaucracy necessary. Generally that time would be 6 months. It's certainly some amount of time shorter than 8+ years. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There wasn't much of a consensus in the
procedural overhead of AfC. Andrew D. (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I strongly oppose a history merge, which, to be clear, no one has asked for until now. The page was properly deleted ten years ago. SportingFlyerT·C 11:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can start by undeleting the history for the DRV, per usual practise, so that the discussion can be informed by it. Andrew D. (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I understand the comment that AFC is supposed to be a "lightweight" process, but am not sure that I agree. In my experience, AFC is frequently used as an attempted way around deletion in order to
Ignore All Rules about past deletion. Maybe other editors disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Allow Re-Creation - I am willing to approve the draft, understanding that what has changed is the increased negative publicity, or someone else can approve the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Recently created implausible redirect is valid for both. A search for "badnam song" returns the relevant page and an hatnote on Badnaam would be appropriate. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 15:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Endorse - Speedy deletion was valid per
R3. Both redirects were implausible. --MrClog (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Overturn and send to RfD. In no way is "Badnam Song" an speedily implausible redirect to "Badnam (song)", and a google search for "Badnaam" song returns results clearly about the target using the double A spelling. These may or may not be useful redirects, but they are not R3 candidates. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Send to RFD. As per Thryduulf, these look like plausible errors, and R3 is for implausible errors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as noted above these redirects were not implausible. Hut 8.5 20:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Not plausible at all. If so, we should have a redirect "Foo Song" for every disambiguated song on the Wiki. This was created at the incorrect title, and then moved on the very same day to the correct one, so R3 is exactly what it is. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is even remotely relevant. Creation at an incorrect title and moving to the correct one happens regularly, what matters for R3 is solely whether the incorrect title is plausible or not and "Foo Song" → "Foo (song)" is extremely plausible, especially given that there are songs named this way (Galaxy Song is the first to come to mind). Note that plausibility is not the same as usefulness and whether other redirects like this do or should exist is not mentioned (and should not be mentioned) in R3 which is only about whether the individual redirect is plausible or not. Additionally there is no consensus that redirects of this nature should never exist. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per
WP:R3. The article was created on May 16, moved on May 16, and the redirect deleted on May 16, so the "post page move" criteria which has been invoked really isn't applicable here. SportingFlyerT·C 07:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Post page move isn't relevant in this case, but in all cases an R3 candidate must be unquestionably implausible. Foo disamiguator → Foo (disambiguator) is always going to be plausible - whether it is useful will depend on several factors meaning that it is not suitable for speedy deletion and needs to be discussed at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a recently created redirect from an implausible misnomer in which the page move should not apply. Textbook
It is a recently created redirect, but it is one from a very plausible title - nowhere near R3 as both aspects of the criterion must be satisfied. Remember if there is any doubt about whether a speedy deletion criterion applies it does not - and there are at least three people here saying this is a plausible redirect so it very clearly isn't obviously implausible. Whether other redirects exist is, as previously mentioned, not relevant to speedy deletion (that's an argument that can be made at RfD). Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine if others disagree with me, but I've already walked through whether
WP:R3 applies. I also checked the songs after you responded to my endorse. SportingFlyerT·C 11:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
And I've explained in detail why R3 does not apply: This title is not implausible because it is an entirely reasonable title for someone not familiar with English Wikipedia article titling conventions to think the article might be at. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're correct here, though. We don't have redirects based on the word song/(song). I suspect this will probably be relisted at RfD, but I would have speedied this myself. SportingFlyerT·C 12:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking that something would probably be deleted at XfD is not a valid reason to speedy delete anything. The only vlaid reason for speedy deleting any page is that it meets the letter of one or more speedy deletion criteria. Literally everything else is explicitly against policy so if you are speedy deleting things like this you'd better stop right now. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've never said this would "probably be deleted at XfD." I'm reviewing whether the speedy deletion was appropriate. It's a valid R3, and I've said all I have to say on that. Please stop putting words in my mouth just because you happen to disagree. SportingFlyerT·C 14:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The article
case and so we wouldn't want to keep it. Andrew D. (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Those are all considerations about utility and are things that need discussion at RfD, they are not evidence of implausibility (different capitalisation is the perfect example of a plausible redirect). Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a simple matter of
WP:COMMONSENSE. The article was created at the wrong title, it was moved to the correct title, and the redirect from the previous incorrect title is cleaned up as if it never existed. That is routine, and sending it on to RFD is a complete waste of everyone's time. As indeed is this thread. In the unlikely event that anyone does type "Badnam Song" into the search bar, we have a perfectly good search functionality that will lead them straight to where they want to go. See [1] for a similar example with the "Ecuador Song". — Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
If this sort of thing is routine then there is a hell of a lot of abuse of R3 going on. R3 is explicitly only for implausible typos and minsnomers - titles like "Badnam osng", "Badnam )song)", "Wikipedia article about Badnam song", "Bandamsong", "Nsmame (song)" or (to this target) "Butterfly (soup)" would be R3 candidates (if recently created). Simply omiting brackets from the disambiguation is not implausible and is not even close to meeting the criteria. Speedy deleting something in any situation not explicitly permitted by the speedy deletion policy is one of the most harmful things an admin can do. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Send to RfD Eh, perhaps a reasonable speedy, but as HW says above, reasonable experienced users disagree, so off it goes to an actual discussion. Hobit (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Send to RfD. Speedy deletion assumes no reasonable objection. Reasonable objection? Speedy send to RfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The objection is not reasonable. The deletion was entirely within normal practice for R3, as well as the judgement of the admin who did the deletion. Making a song and dance of it like this is Wikilawyering and nothing more. It stands no chance of surviving an RFD. — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
R3 notes that it is for "implausible typos or misnomers". "Badnam Song" is certainly a reasonable misnomer for "Badnam (Song)". In fact I can't think of a more reasonable misnomer for it. Can you? Hobit (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is deleted at RfD is irrelevant. Incorrect speedy deletions are one of the most harmful things an administrator can do, correcting them is never inappropriate or wikilawyering. And As Hobit notes, "Badnam Song" is not a typo and it's not an implausible misnomer so it's nowhere near being covered by R3. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Geolodus attempt to make his case there, and all in that place it will be revealed whether he is rebuffed or sustained, as well as the final decision made. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, I see
User:Geolodus for that, but the way to fix this is to speedy list at RfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Endorse. I'm usually a stickler for by-the-letter
WP:RfD for a week, but it would be pointless. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
As a very minor nit, it comes up as the second result for me. That said, with what appears to be improved search results, it's not clear that new redirects (such as this one) are hardly ever needed. But I'd call that more of a policy issue than a DRV issue. It's probably time to update the rules for speedy redirect deletion... Hobit (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy Smith: The internal search box is not the only way to search/browse Wikipedia and search suggestions are only available for some of those methods. When you search for a title that doesn't exist what you see depends on many factors (whether a page was previously deleted, what search method/utility you are using, what device you are using, whether your account has privileges to create articles, possibly whether you have javascript available and enabled, etc). What you see might be search results, an invitation to search, an invitation to start a page, an edit window to being a new article and/or (an excerpt of) the deletion log. For all these reasons it is important to remember that redirects serve far more uses than just populating the search box and can have value even if similar ones exist - e.g. just because Foo (disambiguator) exists doesn't mean that Fooo (disambiguator) or Foo (similar disambiguator) are redundant (they may or may not be, but as several factors need to be considered it's not something that is suitable for speedy deletion at all. Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried searching for Badnam Song in Google, Bing, Yahoo, and DuckDuckGo. All of them were smart enough to return Badnam (song) is the top en.wikipedia.org result for that. In fact, most of them didn't even put Badnam Song on the first results page. Only Google showed me both; in fact, it showed me all of Badnam (song), Badnam Song, and Badnaam Song, so if anything, having those redirects reduced the quality of my search, since it just cluttered up the results with duplicates. Any reasonable search engine will make mechanical mappings like returning Badnam (song) for Badnam Song without the need for us to create an explicit redirect. Redirects are useful when the mapping is something that a search engine is unlikely to be able to do automatically. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is an argument in favour of deletion at RfD, it is not a justification for speedy deletion - indeed it's rather evidence that this is a very plausible redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – per Roy and the other endorse !votes and
WP:R3. There is no reason we would keep Badnam Song or Badnaam Song–the search engines handle that. People disagreeing doesn't mean there is a meaningful disagreement (one worthy of discussion). RFDing this would be a waste of time, and the backlogs are full enough already – Levivich 15:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of speedy deletion. Speedy deletion criteria apply only when there are no reasonable objections that the letter and spirit of one or more specific criteria apply. Speedy deletion is not simply for cases when a few people think an XfD would be a waste of time. Also, there are no significant backlogs at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not misunderstanding. (And I wish you would generally stop characterizing people who disagree with you as "misunderstanding", or in other words, being ignorant or stupid.) I am saying there are no reasonable objections. Yes, that means I'm calling your objections unreasonable. It's unreasonable to suggest we should have a "Badnam Song" redirect to "Bandnam (song)" because search engines already handle it, as explained by Roy (hence my "per Roy" comment). "The backlogs", plural, refers to more than just RFD . – Levivich 16:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You claim not to misunderstand and then go on to demonstrate that you have misunderstood the speedy deletion criteria. Is it plausible someone will search for "Badnam (song)" using the search term "Badnam song"? Yes, obviously. Therefore the redirect is not implausible. Whether it is "necessary" does not form part of the criterion. Whether it will or will not be found by the search engine is not part of the criteria. I'm trying extremely hard to assume good faith, but given you have the reading comprehension skill of an adult and the speedy deletion criterion does not require even that level of interpretation, that assumption is very difficult to maintain. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTBURO. – Levivich 00:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
No, this is not a misnomer (read the article), there has never been a consensus that Foo Song to Foo (song) redirects will always be inappropriate (and even if that was the case we would not and could not expect everybody to be aware of it), and it was not obviously created in error (it was created by an inexperienced user at a plausible title and moved by someone else). NOTBURO is never relevant to challenging incorrect speedy deletions for reasons I've already explained (although without explicitly citing that shortcut). Portals are also completely irrelevant here because this is not a portal. Thryduulf (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The link in
refimprove}} tag. Read the definition of misnomer instead and you'll see why this is a misnomer, specifically, it's an incorrect or inappropriate name for a redirect title. Because that's obvious, it's an R3 candidate. CSDing the redirect after the page move was the right thing to do, it saved the community from needlessly using up resources in a pointless RfD. I'm not going to reply to your next comment, so have the last word. – Levivich 02:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Since we're wikilawyering, I just took another look at
WP:CSD. I don't see anywhere that it talks about "reasonable objections". What it does talk about is, "most obvious cases", which fits here. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Try reading it again. The first paragraph begins: "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here." the second paragraph begins "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.". If there is disagreement about whether a criterion applies then it cannot be one of the most obvious cases. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, CSDs are supposed to be objective and uncontestable. That has always been their basis, understood by everyone, so much so did we forget to write it down somewhere? Debatable borderline deletions should be discussed at an XfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: It seems to me this discussion is between editors who think the redirect should be deleted, and editors who think the redirect should be deleted but we should have an RfD first. Nobody here (so far) is arguing that a redirect Foo Song to Foo (song) should actually be kept. For that reason, though there is disagreement, I don't view this is a borderline case, because the disagreement is about procedure and not substance. – Levivich 02:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a good argument that the term is a reasonable and acceptable redirect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just by counting noses I see 1 editor (the nominator) who has clearly expressed that they believe this is a good redirect and should not be deletd all, 1 editor (SmokeyJoe) who has implied it shouldn't be deleted at all, 7 who clearly say it should be deleted regardless (including RHaworth, the deleting admin), 1 (Hobit) who said it shouldn't be speedy deleted but implied they'd recommend deletion at RfD, and 7 or 8 (depending whether you count SmokeyJoe in this) who have not expressed any clear opinion about whether it should be kept or not if nominated at RfD. That completely refutes your (Levivich's) argument that everyone thinks it should be deleted anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have gotten off the track a bit. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term wikilawyering. That has more negative connotations than I intended. @Thryduulf and SmokeyJoe: I do respect your opinions, even if I disagree with your stance on this particular issue. I'll just leave it there. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Deleting anything with the deletion summary of Wrong Redirect! Not Useful! is inappropriate. Come on RHaworth, you should know better than that. --Tavix(talk) 16:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: I'm not dragging RHaworth off to ANI again, especially since he was only there a few weeks ago. It sounds too much like organising a lynch mob. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 17:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per the recent ANI, the next step would be an Arbcom case. I laid out some examples below demonstrating that RHaworth still hasn't improved since then, but are we at that point now? --Tavix(talk) 18:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to RfD - doesn't meet the R3 criteria. No opinion on the value of the redirect is needed to reach that conclusion. ansh666 17:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn As per Thryduulf. doesn't meet the R3 criteria
Overturn, send page to RfD and send RHaworth to ANI, Arbcom, the naughty step .... anything. Frankly, "Wrong Redirect! Not Useful!" sounds like a Trump tweet. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 17:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Desysop him for doing what's been routinely done without controversy for years, when pages are accidentally moved to the wrong location. I agreed with the complaints about RHaworth's excessive
WP:BITEness but it's not very helpful to hang him out to dry when he does the right thing. — Amakuru (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Except this isn't an isolated incident. These issues have been ongoing for years, and
WP:RDRAFT. I'm sure there are plenty of others, I just grabbed a few obvious ones from skimming through his deletions over the last couple days. I stayed away from any that may be a judgement call because reasonable people may disagree on those. --Tavix(talk) 17:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@Amakuru: he hasn't been doing it uncontroversially for years - look at the history of his talk page and the number of ANI, etc. discussions, and most fundamentally there are far too many times when he isn't doing the right thing. I don't know if the next step is ANI again, or Arbcom but the assurances he gave last time that the behaviour would change have not been upheld. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether other speedies have been problematic, this was accurate and isn't the right one to get the knives out for. SportingFlyerT·C 00:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, your opinion is that despite not coming close to meeting the wording of the CSD criterion this was a valid speedy deletion, despite speedy deletions explicitly being valid only when they meet the wording of at least one CSD criterion and only in the most obvious of those cases. Regardless of whether discussing what the appropriate response is to an administrator who has failed (for years) to act in accordance with one of the most importnt policies, and has failed to change their behaviour despite repeated assertions that they will change, is "getting the knives out", any action will not be a result of this single inccorecct speedy deletion but about the pattern of them. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is for reviewing whether specific deletions were appropriate. If there's a pattern of behaviour, take it to ANI, don't let it muddy the discussion. SportingFlyerT·C 03:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Clearly does not meet the requirements of being "implausible typos or misnomers" which is probably why RHaworth did not even attempt to claim it was
other such redirects do (not) exist is not a valid argument at any deletion discussion, so saying "if we have that one, we must have similar redirects for all X song => X (song) articles" is cleary not a valid argument (although we could have a discussion whether all recently created redirects that fit this pattern should be removed because the search engine can handle it). This might not be the most glaring example of RHaworth's disregard for speedy deletion policy but it's also unfortunately not a surprise. Regards SoWhy 10:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Overturn. R3 doesn't apply as the redirect isn't implausible at all. Sure, we can probably do without it, but that's a different parameter altogether. Personally, I would discourage the creation of such redirects, and would probably support deletion at RfD, but if an RfD discussion is opened, it is unlikely to result in deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Does not meet the speedy deletion criteria because it is not implausible or a misnomer.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn not only plausible redirect but perfectly legitimate. Ridiculous speedy. Smartyllama (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Endorse The closing admin's assessment of consensus is consistent with policy. AFD is not about counting votes, even if sometimes some closers give the impression that that is what they are doing. It's about the strength of the arguments, not getting a supermajority of !votes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while it's not a matter for deletion review, I do have to wonder why Lubbad would previously complain about the AFD being relisted rather than "no consensus; default to keep"[2] and then complain here that the AFD wasn't relisted now that it's turned out that the solution would have been to delete all along. @
WP:RELISTBIAS and how it tends to happen when the consensus is in favour of deletion and/or redirecting, as opposed to keeping? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Endorse. Consensus was that the article and its subject do not meet the significant coverage requirements of the general notability guideline, which also constitutes the basic criteria for the inclusion of a biographical article. If "likely notable" and "not notable" are both correct, then this is one of the unfortunate exceptions, not somehow Notable despite not meeting guidelines. The AfD does not argue that offline or otherwise difficult to find sources may exist. I will also note that 7 DRVs resulted in an overturn last month, so perhaps whether a closure is beyond reproach actually depends on the merits of the case. There was no other way the AfD could have been closed. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031: Just to play devil's advocate, There was no other way the AfD could have been closed. is probably not true from Lubbad's point of view; simply counting the bolded !votes, it was split 5-5 and so a "no consensus" result would not have been beyond the pale, and certainly a lot of admins who are either sympathetic to the cause of, or afraid of backlash from, the ARS-types would have likely interpreted it that way.
That said, this is now the second time that Lubbad has tried to creatively interpret "consensus" (or the supposed lack thereof) in relation to this particular AFD.[3] Combined with the recent copyvio concerns over his attempts to "rescue" another article that was at AFD[4] (and the fact that that was not an isolated incident[5][6][7]), I suspect this might be a user conduct issue with the OP more than a difference of interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS...
Endorse There really isn't a policy reason to keep based on the discussion. There are fewer delete votes on a count of numbers, but they all explain why the article fails our policies, mostly in depth. There aren't any keep !votes which discuss sources. SportingFlyerT·C 06:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A
WP:PRESERVE. As there was no consensus and the elephant had not yet been spotted, the discussion should be relisted rather than closed in this way. Andrew D. (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
IMO, redirecting a woman's article to the article of her husband or her father in law sends a bad message to our readers, similar to titling her article Mrs. Michael Meighen. Merging the content with articles about the organizations she is involved in was something I discussing in my delete !vote, so it was touched upon. (The Foundation does not yet have an article, and I'm not sure if it's notable enough for one yet.) Levivich 15:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Andrew is so far the only "overturn" !vote not to have already !voted "keep" in the original AFD, and in the past year he has, by my count, commented in 15 AFDs besides this one, of which 11 were to overturn delete closes (most of them including the same reflexive accusation of supervoting), two were to endorse keep closes, one was to endorse a "no consensus" close, and one was to overturn a "redirect and protect" close. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn for reasons cited by
Argumentum ad hominem that is fallacious and irrelevant to this discussion. Indeed, similar attacks are part of the AFD discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: this editor !voted keep in the AfD. Levivich 14:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thirteen, please drop these accusations. Aside from the very real copyright problem (believe me -- pretending these are fake accusations drummed up to win arguments is not a good idea), the fact that the OP has been "creatively interpreting" consensus in relation to this AFD (in a flip-floppy, self-contradictory way) is very much relevant, and claiming I am making an "argumentum ad hominem" is a bit weird, since the only comments I made "about" the OP were (a) a devil's advocate remark in his defense or (b) a question directly addressed at said OP regarding something argument. You, on the other hand, excepting the "I agree with Andrew" prologue, wrote a comment that is literally nothing but off-topic remarks about how you don't like one of the "endorse" commenters, including bizarrely accusing me of making similar personnal attacks [as] part of the AFD discussion when I didn't even comment on the original AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[8] I'm going to give you another chance to retract your baseless remark without factual foundation (the alleged copyvio was minimal and in good faith and was quickly corrected and that particular article was both a Keep and will be a DYK over the objections of the above editor) [...] Indeed, similar attacks are part of the AFD discussion.. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see you struck the single least offensive part of the above remark. Now what about the rest? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88:User:7&6=thirteen you promised to stay away from each other, and yet here you are sniping again. I think unless something miraculous happens, this is going to have to end up at ANI and perhaps with a formal IBAN and blocks forthcoming if it's broken. Just cut it out, both of you. — Amakuru (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment: I reaffirm my "delete" closure. The review request here was made 80 minutes after Lubbad85 left me a talk page message, so they should not be surprised about not hearing from me in the interim. The review request makes no intelligible argument about what exactly is supposed to be wrong with the reason for the closure. Sandstein 12:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The article was improved during the afd - this is the case when an article resucue is attempted. The afd was extended to allow more participation after the majority of editors voted keep, and the arguments were still tilted in favor of a keep. In these situations the Wikipedia policy/guidance advises keep, and yet the closer chose delete. The question before the closer was: Is there consensus to delete or keep? An unbiased reading of the arguments on the Afd reveal no consensus. The closer appears to have entered a Supervote which cancels the will of all other editors participating on the afd. If the closer wanted to vote on the afd then another administrator should close the afd. I understand that the work of an administrator is tedious, and difficult. I know this closer works tirelessly because I see the signature everywhere on the boards and afds. The administrators have significant power on wikipedia, and this is why wikipedia has policies. Wikipedia has a no consensus keep policy for a reason and it should be followed.
Note: this editor !voted keep in the AfD, and is the nominator of this DRV. Levivich 14:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(
Wikipedia is not a democracy -- the only important thing is the weight of the arguments based on policy, and most of the "keep" !votes in this case were drive-by "meets GNG"-type remarks that failed to stand up under the scrutiny they were given by the "delete" !votes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Lubbad, if someone has already responded to specific text in your comment, please do not simply alter it without noting that you have done so, either by striking it through or by appending an extra time-stamp to your signature to indicate that the comment has been altered. Anyway, "no consensus keep" is not a policy, and the AFD still looks very much, to everyone except you and some members of the ARS crowd, like a consensus to delete, so even if that was a policy it wouldn't apply here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC) (edited 14:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Endorse. Good close, good reading of consensus as weighted by strength of arguments. Exactly as stated by the closer. The nomination was comprehensive and excellent. The delete !votes spoke to the details, the keep !votes were vaguewaves. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- The keep votes were effectively refuted. I'll always back those who analyse sources over those who just dump them into an AfD. ReykYO! 14:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The delete !voters made discussion of the thinking provided by keep !voters and even when asked specifically to do so the keep !voters did not do the reverse. This suggests that proper weight was given by the closer to all thinking offered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I !voted delete in the AfD so I'm not !voting here, but I want to say this: Over half a dozen uninvolved editors have now taken the time to read that AfD and !vote here, and I bet each of them spent more time on that than the nominator spent on this nomination. DRV nomination arguments like "...no policy reason to delete...policy reason to Keep..." are entirely formulaic–it takes like five seconds to draft a DRV nomination like that–and it spawns a whole bunch of work for a bunch of other editors. Just like most of the keep !votes in the AfD, such a statement asserts notability without even bothering to back it up with, e.g., a link to a policy or a link to a source. This is compounded by the nominator waiting less than an hour and a half between posting on the closer's talk page and filing this DRV–which basically is the same as skipping that step altogether–and yet having the gall to criticize the closer's supposed lack of response in their nomination statement. I hope in the future, nominator's DRV nominations will be much more thought out, and that they engage in good-faith discussion with the closer before even thinking about posting it to DRV. Levivich 15:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Per SmokeyJoe & Reyk. --MrClog (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse - There was no right answer here. The Keep arguments are largely of the form
Sources Exist, also references to minor awards (whose purpose is sometimes to create the appearance of notability). The right answer on Week 1 or Week 2 would have been a Relist, and that had already been done. Many AFDs drag on for weeks because there are sources, but the sources aren't much, and this was such a case. Either No Consensus or Delete would have been a valid closure. No right answer, but this was not a wrong answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
Comment - The Delete arguments are stronger than the Keep arguments. Whether this was a consensus was a valid judgment call by the closer. There was no right answer, and this was not a wrong answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
endorse I'd also have endorsed NC, but delete is the proper outcome of that discussion IMO. The arguments for deletion appear on-point and stronger. On the plus side, it was a well attended AfD that appears to have addressed the relevant points well. Hobit (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Folks !voting Keep were asked to point out the
WP:THREE best sources but declined to do so. Delete !votes were analyzing the sources as all being bare mentions, affiliated, etc. I'm not sure how we can argue that Deletes shouldn't carry more weight in such a case. When I'm trying to rescue an article and someone asks me which three sources I feel prove notability, I feel like my best move is to call those three sources out, linking to them within the AfD and maybe even saying, "longish piece, 90% about article subject" or whatever. I want to make it easy for people to agree with me! --valereee (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Endorsebut with no prejudice against recreation with the right sources. The primary reason for the deletion nomination is that the article was basically a breach of
WP:NOTADVERTISING. On notability it was borderline - some argued there were sources, while others argued there were not. So it was kind of no consensus on that front. But given that the article was basically a promotional puff piece, it was entirely legitimate to delete it. On whether she meets GNG, I would argue she probably just about does. She gets some quite significant coverage in this book, an executive profile on Bloomberg and the family interview for me would constitute three references which could be used. Such a recreation would have to be judged on its own merits though, not the merits of the previous deleted article. — Amakuru (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I would caution anyone recreating the article that the book appears to be from a
WP:RS, and the Globe & Mail piece only mentions Kelly once and might not be SIGCOV of her (as opposed to her husband, the family, or the foundation). Levivich 19:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Alright, you make a good point. I hadn't noticed that the book was self-published. I've struck the part about allowing recreation. Endorse on both promotional and lack of notability grounds. — Amakuru (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It was clear that there were not substantive sources to establish notability. The argument that receiving a medal given to hundreds of thousands of people creates notability is laughable. Reywas92Talk 16:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
