Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 October

Chris Ronayne (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I understand that there were multiple issues with the Chris Ronayne page that were not addressed. However, the page was not being monitored previously. Since its deletion it has been my responsibility to update and recreate the page. If I am not entirely sure what I am doing, but I am just looking to undelete the page so that I can update it, and fix the previous issues with the page. Chris Ronayne is an important political figure within the Cleveland, OH community, and if necessary I have the sources for that. I know that there were 3 specific issues with the page mainly concerning source citation. I am currently looking looking to fix those issues and believe that I can. In addition he is the CEO of of University Circle, a location in Cleveland with an accredited page. Not only is his page important for those looking to learn more about him politically, it is also essential for University Circle, so that we can inform our readers of who is running our organization, what our values are, and why Chris is someone essential to the success of University Circle. Abbeyhughes13 (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:COI, but that shouldn't prevent the WP:REFUND. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Support that. Chris Ronayne, president of University Circle, is plausibly notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support, and if it turns out that Abbeyhughes13 had something else in mind, I would be strongly tempted to undelete on my own request. The deleted version of this article was sadly under-cited, but if i had noticed I would have objected to the deletion, and I would be surprised if a valid article could not be constructed about Ronayne. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile infantry (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Was closed as a false "Speedy keep" 2 days after the discussion began when there was clearly a dissenting opinion in the discussion and the nominator as well as myself presented valid points towards the page's removal that were not refuted. This was not a proper application of the snowball clause. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Relist - The close conflated a
  Speedy Keep 3. An argument can be made that it was a snowball close, which, as noted, is not a speedy keep close, but that isn't how it was closed. For that reason, the close should be overturned and the discussion allowed to resume. It will almost certainly be a Keep, but process does matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Do nothing. This shouldn't have even been at AfD. We'd never delete this page. The question of disambig vs redirect could have been considered on the article talk page. As for process, yes it matters, but not to the point that we overturn things merely because of a process fail. That's what trouts are for. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Things are commonly listed at AfD because A. redirect discussions on obscure pages get very little participation and B. it would be easily overturned unless it was decided at AfD it should be redirected.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. Bad NAC. Not a speedy keep, and the discussion was nowhere near unanimous enough to invoke the snowball clause. – Joe (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - Someone did comment on my talk that it was a bad close - apologies. I have taken a second look, and I agree. I should have at least let it run a few more days for consensus. I am quite happy to self-revert if possible, unless this conversation also needs to reach a consensus. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:SashiRolls/SWAPP (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I believe this page has been wrongly speedied. U5 doesn't apply as this is very relevant to Wikipedia, and G10 doesn't apply to alleged

• Overturn CSD. The deleted page is a crazed rant, to be sure, but
  WP:G10 also doesn't apply. While this rant certainly says some unkind things about other editors, I really can't see it being called an attack page. I suppose others might disagree on that, so I'm not going to tempdelete it; I beg the indulgence of non-admins on this one. I don't see how this page is useful to wikipedia, but it doesn't fit either of the CSD it was deleted under, so it should be restored and brought to MfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Keep Deleted. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not go down legal ratholes. It turns out, the person who wrote this user-space page wants it deleted. Let's move on to something useful (and arguing about exactly which CSD gets logged isn't useful). -- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn CSD to Keep as per RoySmith, . This is as clearly about Wikipedia as it could be, it is an account, from one user;'s PoV, of a series of on-wiki actions. I don't see hoe this could have been deleted as a U5. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Overturn of U5 and/or G10, as per
  Ignore All Rules deletion, which would result in anarchy. Ugh. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This was ineligible for U5 because its author has plenty of mainspace contributions, but not because it's relevant to Wikipedia. That's not what U5's about, and the page wasn't relevant to Wikipedia's goals, which is. Unless dispute resolution is now one of Wikipedia's goals in its own right. No opinion on it as a G10. —
  Cryptic 07:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Still no opinion on the most recent version's G10iness - it would require more familiarity with the underlying issues than I care to have - but the version deleted by RHaworth in May was pretty unquestionably an attack page. If the closer's inclined to go through the useless rigamarole of restoring this and then waiting for SashiRolls to retag it as a U1/G7, don't restore the May 2 revisions. —
    Cryptic 13:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Lean Overturn - It's obviously not a U5; it's specifically mentioned as a response to r to Mr or Mrs Butternut's ARCA filing (per the first edit summary); the relevant AN/I is now closed, I don't see anything at ArbCom. It's however plausible, that it's still needed for dispute resolution at somewhere I'm missing, and an MfD where SashiRolls can make that case makes the most sense to me (which is to say, I'm not confidently able to discern whether it meets the "and serves no other purpose" of G10, it's certainly not obvious, so it would appear to at least merit a discussion on that point. WilyD 08:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - An MFD in which SashiRolls could make that case would require that SashiRolls be unblocked, and
  DRV is not an unblocking forum. Someone else will have to try to make that case unless SashiRolls is unblocked in the normal course of unblock requests. If I understand the circumstances, I would oppose an unblock, at least unless they meet the usual conditions of understanding why they were blocked and a willingness to try to change that. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn speedy deletion as out of process: by accident rather than anything more, hopefully. ——SN54129 09:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, and for the record, although the nomination mentions RHaworth, it is true that they deleted the page U5/G10 in May this year; but another admin deleted it in June under the same criteria. ——SN54129 09:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn
  WP:POLEMIC allows The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner., not U5. --Pudeo (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I almost just wrote something like "there's no way it's going to be used in a 'timely manner', its creator is blocked indef", except it seems its creator was blocked indef specifically for creating this page and then linking to an offsite cache of it after it was deleted (admin-only diff). If we're overturning this deletion, we'd be hypocrites not to unblock SashiRolls too. Yes I know this isn't the right forum for that. —
    Cryptic 16:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Leave deleted , since SashiRolls obviously has a complete copy of this offline, and would not be able to use it onwiki, being blocked and all. And since it concerns someone with whom he was about to be (or maybe has been, haven't checked) interaction interacted on a subject he is about to be topic banned from. Whether or not U5 or G10 applied at the time of deletion doesn't matter too much; what matters is that is is not useful to anyone, and can be considered damaging to someone, now. It should stay deleted for now. If SashiRolls is ever unblocked, and the interaction topic ban isn't enacted doesn't make the dispute moot, and it can still legitimately be considered useful in dispute resolution (3 big if's), then we can undelete. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC) I've made a hopeless mess of this, saying something 80% correct, changing it to something 50% correct, and now finally (I hope) getting it right. I'm just going to cross this out and start fresh, simplifying things in the process. New rationale is very simple: SashiRolls is one-way i-banned from Tryptofish. This deleted page is all about Tryptofish. There is therefore no possible benefit to undeleting this page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave it
  WP:NOTBURO: Is there any serious question about what the end result of an MFD would be? It's a three month old "preparation" for an (almost certainly futile) arbitration case from a now-blocked user. It's not as if there was anything preventing SashiRolls from using this evidence at any point in the last 90 days - what possible purpose would this serve? @RoySmith: I haven't seen the actual Wiki version, but the off-site version that was linked yesterday contained a section rhetorically asking whether that user had stumbled into an off-wiki conspiracy, so that would seem to undercut the view that this was about behavior on Wikipedia. Nblund ^talk 16:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note that I have blocked SashiRolls indefinitely for circumventing the deletion of this page, which was deleted twice, both times as an attack page. They effectively restored it a third time by placing an external link to it. I'm not sure why they didn't just go through the DRV motions to get it restored the right way, but I did consider such a restoration to have been disruptive. Were they to launch an unblock appeal whereby this is acknowledged, an unblock (and a resumption of the AE case), may become viable — although I'm still concerned about the user having already been indeffed and unblocked so many times. El_C 17:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - How is it that several of those !voting here are non-admins? This is a deleted page. Presumably the only people who would have insight other than admins are people already involved in disputes concerning this page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saved a copy before it was deleted. – Levivich 19:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok... but, I mean, why? :) That seems pretty unusual. Regardless, it rather makes my point above that that non-admins !voting here are already people so invested in this dispute that they would, apparently, save someone else's userspace page. Since Wikipedia pages are, of course, stored indefinitely, the only reason I can think of to do this is if you knew it was problematic enough to be deleted but wanted a copy anyway? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find this troubling, too. We have Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment; I realize that this isn't linking, but the spirit of it is that it borders on harassment to see something that one knows is about to be deleted, and to make sure to keep an external copy just before the deletion goes through, so as to be able to, in effect, undo the deletion. It's not like Levivich intended to promptly contest the deletion at DRV, so it's pretty hard to argue that it was kept in order to save something from an erroneous deletion. Rather, it seems more like thumbing one's nose at the deletion decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I mean, this line of thinking is just a distraction. The link he was blocked for posting, which I assume is the page in question, isn't exactly hard to find. It's been posted elsewhere. Arkon (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Lucky me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • To be fair, as a non-admin who votes on DRV articles simply because I find it the most interesting area of the wiki, I could have seen myself asking for the page to be undeleted to determine whether the speedy was incorrect. I'm just coming across this now, have the ability to read every drop of ink that's been spilled on this, and have been completely unfamiliar with the conflict, but DRV isn't just a place for admins (or else I need to be permabanned.) SportingFlyer T·C 14:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Rhododendrites: I saved it before the second deletion because I was thinking of filing this DRV. I don't remember now why I didn't, but I'm glad that wumbolo did. – Levivich 04:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I've notified Toddst1, who tagged the page for speedy deletion both times. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. However, that was a few months ago and I don't remember what the page contained or even if I was somehow involved. As a non-admin, I can't look at it to find out so I will refrain from commenting. Toddst1 (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously, I believe that this page should remain deleted. It contains nothing of value—it's simply a page of
  vitriol primarily against Tryptofish. The level of snark, and the "interestingly"-captioned picture make this page unsuitable for an ArbCom case. On another note, weren't TryptoFish and SashiRolls interaction-banned or very nearly interaction-banned at that point in time? Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yeah, not quite. That's my bad. Though, eventually, there was consensus for a one-way interaction ban, I screwed up the formulation of the sanction itself, so I'm not sure about how applicable it can be seen, from a procedural standpoint. Plus, I failed to properly log it. All in all, not my finest moment. El_C 18:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the ping; I otherwise would not have known what was going on. First, to answer Reaper Eternal's question, just before SashiRolls was indeffed yesterday, he was under a 1-way interaction ban with me (as an AE sanction), but that ban went into effect after the creation of the deleted page, not before. Now, to the merits of the DR. As the subject of the deleted page, I feel very strongly that it should remain deleted. Let's look at the policy basis for this review. There were two CSD reasons cited. One was that we are not a web host and such material should be kept only if there is an intention to use it in the near future for the purpose of dispute resolution or constructive commentary. SashiRolls kept the material for quite a long time without ever initiating any dispute resolution about me, although he did make threats to use the material externally for press release in a manner that edged up to
  WP:NLT. So is the argument here that, one day after he has been indeffed, it's a good time for him to initiate dispute resolution against me? What a strange assertion! Procedurally, let's wait to see if his unblock request is (God forbid!) granted, and then evaluate whether or not the page is going to be useful for the purposes of Wikipedia dispute resolution. But as long as he remains blocked, that reason to overturn remains nonsensical. And his 1-way IBAN with me remains in effect if he is unblocked, so the argument that it's permissible commentary about Wikipedia is similarly meritless unless that, too, is overturned. Now the other CSD issue is about it being an attack page. In other words, whether it was an attack page about me. Now, there have been serial versions of the page, including recreations after the first of two deletions. I'm not an admin, so I cannot have the pleasure of seeing what version we are talking about here. (I've heard rumors about off-wiki mirrors, but non-admins should not assume that those are identical to what would be undeleted.) But when I first complained about the page at ANI, it was describing me as "bonkers" and "shitty". If the consensus here is that that does not amount to an attack page, I have a request. I would like to be given a special permission to call every editor who supports undeletion here "bonkers" and "shitty". Does that sound like fun? And has Wikipedia really degenerated to the point that stuff like that gets taken seriously as "dispute resolution"? During the recent Framgate debacle, the WMF threatened to take over civility enforcement from the community. Letting this kind of garbage pass for dispute resolution or legitimate commentary (about someone he is IBANed from commenting about!) reflects pretty damn badly on the editors who want to do so. Maybe there is some kind of bureaucratic reason to put it through MfD instead of CSD. Well, I hope that no one will want to make me suffer through that. This DRV lacks a basis in policy, and is morally shameful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The version that was deleted contains neither "bonk" nor "shit". -- RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, isn't that wonderful! Should we start a celebration? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that, in light of this DRV, I have conditionally restored SashiRolls' talk access so that they can launch a proper unblock appeal. El_C 19:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion as U5/G10 and unblock Sashi allow U1 – per Pudeo and Cryptic's rationales. The page is a collection of diffs and commentary about the diffs, in Sashi's usual impressionist prose style. It's definitely not U5, and I don't agree with the characterization of it as an "attack page". But it's definitely not any CSD criteria. It should never have been speedy deleted in the first place. Ergo, Sashi's block for linking to the incorrectly-deleted page (which I don't really understand where in policy this is forbidden anyway) should be overturned as well. – Levivich 19:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Update: Given that SashiRolls has now been unblocked and what they wrote on their talk page (If the page is restored to my user space, I will delete it myself ... What needs to be removed from the record is the false claim that it was an attack page.), I support undoing the U5/G10 deletion and allowing Sashi to tag it for U1. – Levivich 03:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You saved a copy before it was deleted?????? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Trypofish: Apparantly, it's been saved to archive.org. ——SN54129 05:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, this is not a place where an unblock decision can be made. The discussion is about whether to overturn a page deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tryptofish, I'm still going to address it, though. Levivich, the policy is
    disruptive editing (please see my first comment here). It is disruptive to continue to restore a deleted page that is deemed an attack page, be it directly, or by linking to it externally. That it may not be deemed an attack page now is not something I could have accounted for at the time. As also mentioned, if SashiRolls acknowledges this misstep, an unblock indeed becomes viable. Ordinarily, I would have just gone with a warning, but due to SashiRolls' troubling history of multiple indefinite blocks, I decided otherwise. El_C 19:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment. Given
  WP:CIVIL discourse. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @
    WP:ARBGMO. I'm not sure about "timely manner" because I can't access the history anymore, and SashiRolls may have revised the page recently. That's what MfD is for. PS. You voted "keep" about a laundry list of diffs and stated that keeping diffs for a "month or two" is not unreasonable in a May 2018 MfD. It thus should be clear to you why some people would find the subpage acceptable, even if it's probably hard to be impartial because the diffs are about you. --Pudeo (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The earlier MfD is
      WP:OTHERSTUFF and the specifics do not compare. But your research actually makes me aware of something I didn't know to comment about before. SashiRolls is also topic banned from GMOs (although there are some unresolved questions about the scope). So that TBAN would also have to be lifted before this page could be restored. Thanks for making me aware of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Needed background. With Rhododendrites comment, I'm not an admin, but have seen the page in a few iterations on-wiki and been subject to some of the behavior dealing with Sashirolls. To be clear for those that likely don't know the history as Tryptofish has discussed in-depth above and El C has mentioned with sanctions, the SWAPP page has been used as an attack page and already deleted twice as an attack page. Two things that those voting keep above are likely not aware of:

1. Sashirolls is under a 1-way interaction ban with Tryptofish. This means Sashi can be working on material in prepping an appeal focusing on their own behavior, but not circumventing the ban under the guise of it by continuing to pursue battleground behavior and vilification of Trpytofish for which they were banned. If the most recent revival was anything like previous versions, it would be a violation of the spirit of their ban.
   WP:G5
   can easily apply in such a case too.
2. The page hasn't been used in a timely manner in terms of
   WP:POLEMIC. Instead, they frequently dangle threats out there in admin discussions of creating lists saying maybe they'll bring it to the press instead, for which EL C explicitly warned Sashirolls about already.[1]
   The tone at ANI, etc. has been more about veiled threats than an appeal when they bring that page up.

It should stay deleted since Sashi obviously has a copy, and it won't do anything but harm them in the long run in terms of their current sanctions. If the category needs to be reclassified, G5 related to

talk) 20:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Leave deleted, per Tryptofish.  If this sort of thing is acceptable behavior on Wikipedia, then decent people will continue to be driven away. In the absence of more decent editors, the disruptive editors who remain will be treated as more valuable than they are, and the vicious circle will continue.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I read the deleted version and honestly can't find anything rising to the level of U5 or G10. I mean, it's mostly quotes with commentary on them, not a rant - seems relatively structured (and thus somewhat relevant to the project). See also RoySmith's comment. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As a non-admin, and as someone who does not want to do a web search to find the reposting of the page elsewhere, I'm working at the disadvantage of not knowing exactly what version is potentially to be undeleted. But as I piece together what other editors are saying here, perhaps the tone has been revised to be more polite than what I saw before, but it appears to be very largely about me, as someone who was supposedly involved in tag-teaming at GMO pages. (Feel free to correct that if I'm wrong.) As of just before the block, SashiRolls is IBANed from commenting about me, and is more or less TBANed from GMO pages. And the ArbCom GMO case concluded that it is disruptive to assert that editors are working together to defend GMO companies. So even if the page is no longer particularly attack-y, and even if it discusses things that are relevant to Wikipedia (both of which I rather doubt), it still remains the case that, if undeleted, it would very largely be about stuff that SashiRolls is banned from posting about. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify what I just said, it would be one thing if SashiRolls were using the page to make a case for having sanctions against him lifted, but quite another to complain about other editors. And two wrongs don't make a right, so if he were claiming that he should be unsanctioned because other editors are doing bad things, that's just deflection, not a valid argument. So it seems to me that the page cannot be justified as making a case for his own defense, and otherwise it's commentary about things he is banned from commenting about. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per
  WP:BURO. The page was deleted on 2 May 2019 and again on 28 June 2019 (the second version being longer but on a similar theme with a list of an opponent's shortcomings). The last edit to the page by SashiRolls was on 18 May 2019. Four months have elapsed since it was last deleted and it is pointless to argue that its merits should be relitigated when it was unequivocally a misuse of Wikipedia as a web host and an attack page. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep deleted I'm not sure this actually meets any of the CSD criteria, although it comes close to some. It definitely isn't a U5 because it is about Wikipedia. The page consists of diffs of edits by other people, mostly Tryptofish, along with commentary by SashiRolls. SashiRolls is banned from interacting with Tryptofish but that sanction was imposed on 20 May [2] and SashiRolls hasn't edited this page since, so it isn't a G5 candidate. I think it's closer to G10, it certainly reads as an attack on the behaviour of editors who SashiRolls disagrees with. However we do give some leeway on this to people who are compiling diffs for dispute resolution purposes. I'm not going to support restoring this though because it has basically no chance of surviving MfD, it clearly violates
  WP:POLEMIC which bans Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. There is an exemption for dispute resolution material but only if used in a timely manner, and this is from May. Furthermore the editor who owns the page would be blocked if they made any further edits to it because it would be in breach of the interaction ban. Having this kind of thing lying around indefinitely doesn't help the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 22:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Two things: (1) I found the off-site edition of the deleted page, and it's pretty much what I said I surmised it was from what other editors have posted here. (2) SashiRolls has posted on his user talk page about this discussion. I won't presume to paraphrase it, but I encourage other editors to look there to see what he thinks about deleting or not deleting the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I will say is that it probably qualifies for CSD now, as a
    WP:G7. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Weak Endorse - I haven't seen the crazed rant. If different administrators disagree as to whether it was a
  G10 attack page, and if everyone who has seen it agrees that it should stay or be deleted, it probably is an attack page, and in any case should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• comment I have just read thoguht the nabove, and the version of the page just before its final deletion. That version seemed to consist largely of quotes from and links to statements by other editors posted publicly on en.Wikipedia. I see no explicit attack, and it cannot constitute an attack to quote what a person has chosen to say/post publicly. So this wasn't a G10. As SashiRolls was an experienced editor U5 cannot apply to him, but I would argue that comment on Wikipedia's internal processes cannot be a U5 in any case, even if posted by a user with ZERO mainspace edits. How Wikipedia works is vital to building the encyclopedia, and this no page on such a topic is outside its goals, nor doe U5 apply. I express no view on whether earlier versions of the page might have constituted attack pages. Oh and is not now a G7, it was never deleted by consensus after a discussion, that I am aware of. My error I was thinking G4, but no one has suggested that. Comment about G7 struck. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to make it clear that none of the comments ion this discussion have altered the view I expressed above. 04:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn the "U5" call. No opinion on the G10 call. That may mean undeleting and redeleting with the right log reference. U5 must not be used to delete the subpages of contributors. The wide open broadness of U5 is balanced only by the narrow criterion that the user is a non-contributor. Note also that POLEMIC has never been close to be being a CSD criterion. If the rant was polemical, recording negative information related to others, then take it to MfD. There are WP:DR avenues for negative information, it is not outright banned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Point of order: SashiRolls has been unblocked and said they want the page deleted. If they want the page deleted then the result of this discussion cannot result in undeletion; we are never going to force them to keep it against their will. Normally, the only reason to keep this discussion going would be to decide if they could change their mind later and request undeletion (typically yes if a
  WP:CSD#G10). But in this case, due to the interaction ban, they cannot request undeletion until the iban is removed. So why waste more time? The next uninvolved admin to read this should simply undelete and redelete per G7, not because G10 was wrong (we don't have to decide on that), but because this argument doesn't need to keep going anymore. If I hadn't voted above, I'd do it myself; it's the only rational outcome now that SashiRolls has said they want it deleted, and so should be completely uncontroversial. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Note that as i understood the talk page comments, SashiRolls said that s/he desired the page deleted only after it was decided that it was not an attack page, that is that G10 did not apply. I don't ever recall such a conditional G7. I suppose we could overturn (if that is the consensus) and then do a G7 delete. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • But we're not here to entertain SashiRolls. If it's an attack page, it stays deleted. If it isn't, it gets deleted per G7. Either way, it gets deleted, so there's no benefit to continuing to argue how many angels fit on the head of a pin. There's some legal or logical term of art for the type of argument that goes "If A is true, then B is true because of reason C. If A is not true, then B is true because of reason D. Therefore, B is true even if it is unknowable whether A is true or not". Unfortunately, I learned this so many years ago that I've completely forgotten the term. But it applies here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, we're not here to entertain Sashi, we're here to determine if the U5/G10 deletion of page that was made on June 28 should be endorsed or overturned. I see a few key clarifying points in this discussion:
        1. This should be considered a DRV of the June 28 deletion of a page that was created on May 17. The earlier version of the page, created on April 30 and deleted on May 2, is a different page and a different deletion.
        2. CSD criteria are supposed to be unambiguous. That at least half or more of the editors reviewing the page don't think it's an attack page strongly suggests that it's not an unambiguous attack page, and therefore should only be deleted after discussion at an MfD.
        3. It's a user subpage, so it should be U1 not G7 (right?). Both U1 and G7 are if the author requests it. The author is free to make that request if the page is undeleted.
        4. Sashi wasn't under an IBAN when the page was created.
        5. The page wasn't deleted as an IBAN violation.
        6. "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" is an exception to
           WP:IBAN
           , and that should include creating an evidence page for an Arbcom case. Prior to both versions of these pages being created, there was a pending ARC and AE against Sashi, and I don't see a problem with Sashi creating an evidence page for what they thought would be an ongoing or forthcoming Arbcom case and/or for an AE filing.
        7. If this consensus is that this is not an unambiguous attack page, the G10 deletion should be overturned. At that point, Sashi can decide whether they want to keep the page as an evidence page to use in a dispute resolution forum, or blank it and request U1 deletion. It's great that Sashi has already indicated a preference for the latter, but if it was not a proper use of CSD, the ultimate decision should be Sashi's, and not ours. – Levivich 16:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • A G7 and a U1 have a sizable overlap. A page created and edited solely by User X, in X's userspace, comes under either or both. G7 includes pages solely edited by the requestor in any namespace; U1 includes pages in the requestor's namespace, no matte who created or edited thsoe pages. This is a minor point of clarification. I tend to agree with your points above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The practical difference, currently, between endorsing this as a G10 on the one hand, and overturning as a G10 and then letting SashiRolls speedy as a G7 on the other, is that in the latter case SashiRolls can request it be restored at
    Cryptic 16:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Delete a page because, in the future, an editor might improperly request a refund of it, which might be granted, and another admin might block the editor who improperly requested the refund? Seriously? That's a lot of paternalism and assumptions–including assumptions of bad faith. How about this instead: we assume that Sashi knows when they should and shouldn't request a REFUND, and if Sashi screws that up, then Sashi deals with the consequences? – Levivich 17:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess one way to approach this discussion is to treat it as an algorithmic analysis of CSD criteria, and undelete the page so it can be deleted again – as if the sky would fall if there were the wrong CSD criterion involved! Or, we could use common sense and basic decency. The sole creator of the page wants it deleted. And no one else has a remotely reasonable use for the page in mind. We should let the deletion stand, and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have restored the page and then immediately deleted it again per U1. I don't see any need for this conversation to continue and am closing it.
  talk) 19:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Category:Wicket-keepers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Following a discussion at

I, therefore, request to permit us to recreate those deleted categories. Thanks. Störm (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. We do need navigation for these articles, but not list articles that can only be constantly out of date, while our Cats work effortlessly. --
  old fashioned! 17:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Here is the previous deletion discussion. I agree that the top-level category should be restored, but not to have the sub-cats, per the rationale brought up at the CfD ("...as it's not a defining characteristic like being a batsman or bowler..."). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is there an issue of an error by the closer, or is this a request to re-create the category? I am confused about what are defining and non-defining categories. In North America, we call them
  designated hitters.) Don't only the wicket-keepers keep wicket? Don't only the bowlers bowl? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Robert McClenon: Wicket-keepers in cricket are functionally equivalent to catchers in baseball, and catchers in baseball have their own category. Bowlers are equivalent to baseball pitchers. Everybody bats, similar to the National League, so cricket places a premium on "all-rounders," specifically players which are simultaneously good bowlers and batters, since there are no substitutions in cricket - if you're not bowling, you have to play in the field somewhere, and fielding positions aren't fixed as they are with baseball (and don't get into a discussion about defensive shifts.) Would support overturning per S Marshall, below. SportingFlyer T·C 13:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a discussion at the cricket Wikiproject here which supported getting rid of them. It looks like the categories of most cricketing positions were deleted back in 2006 because it was difficult to determine whether a category was appropriate to a particular person, given that all cricketers have to bat and lots of batters also do some bowling. The wicketkeeper categories were spared this because it was felt to be a more specialised position. This CfD wasn't very well attended, the nominator has since been indeffed, and the major argument was that the 2006 precedent also applied, which seems a bit dubious to me. I don't know enough about cricket to have a position one way or the other but I think reopening the issue would be justifiable. Hut 8.5 19:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I can't fault the closing admin for closing it as delete because the consensus there was clear. Allow recreating the top level category but not the various national sub-categories. Reyk _YO! 08:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• In many CFD discussions, as with this one, there aren't any policies that are really applicable, and only one guideline (
  CLN specifically says that categories, lists and navigation templates are not mutually exclusive and should be allowed to coexist. In other words, where there can be a list, there can be a category, and vice versa. The subject discussion was poorly-attended; it reached a conclusion contrary to Wikipedia's only applicable rule or guideline; and it gave no reasons why the rule should be ignored. Overturn, and I don't mean "allow re-creation", I do specifically mean "overturn" because I'm saying the outcome was definitively wrong.—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  That's totally OK. I was more reflecting on the status of the list article, which without a category had a real need/purpose, but with a recreated category, we can safely let the list article go without losing navigation. --

  old fashioned! 13:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose. We don't have Category:Right-handed batsman, or Category:Silly mid-on fielders, or Category:Slow left-arm orthodox bowlers. Overcategorisation, pure and simple. StickyWicket (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  old fashioned! 10:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page had enough reliable sources for living in wikipedia. Lazy-restless 18:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The appellant doesn't seem to be arguing any error by the closer, or any other reason to overturn. It looks like a valid AFD with a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also didn't know that, article creator can vote, otherwise I voted on Afd. And not all sources are mention only, there are many rs that discussed the book abbreviately along with the subject topic. Lazy-restless 19:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin comment: Lazy-restless did participate in the AFD and I considered their comments, even if there was no bolded "vote". Another editor provided a detailed review of the sources and concluded they were not sufficient to show notability; all other participants besides Lazy-restless agreed. This seemed sufficient to close the discussion as Delete at the time, and I haven't seen anything new to change that conclusion, which is why I declined the request to re-open the AFD. --RL0919 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse ther wee no obvious problems with the discussion and consensus was clear. But permit a new version to be created as a draft space -- perhaps better sources cab be found, But the nominator needs to understand that reasonable quality sources with some depth of coverage are needed, or this will go nowhere. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The discussion was clear - if the article is indeed notable, no real issues with a draft, but the sources as presented were judged to be insufficient for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 13:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse proper XfD close per
  WP:LOCALCONSENSUS Lightburst (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Rupert Dover (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Overturn to keep In the deletion discussion, some people believe that this article is an attack page and is not meet the notability guideline. But the career of Rupert Dover in this article is sourced and neutral. [3] this source in the article meet the significant coverage requirement in

• Bearing in mind that both of those sources were in the article during the AFD, what's changed in [checks time since the closure of
  Cryptic 09:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks for your reminder. I searched the internet and I found that there are other sources mention Rupert Dover this guy, such as [5][6][7][8]. The third source did not just mention him and describe him. I consider that this source meets the significant coverage requirement. In my opinion, These source can verify the notability.--SCP-2000 (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there any chance this can be closed early? None of the new sources (assuming they're new) appear to be sigcov, and I'm not convinced this user is fully here. SportingFlyer T·C 12:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The deletion reviews will continue until the outcome is overturned!—S Marshall T/C 13:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Nations Bank of Canada (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While I am fine with the current consensus as determined by the XfD closer @

• I'm tempted to say this should be speed-closed as failing
  WP:DRVPURPOSE. I can can't see DRV imposing a change in the wording of a closing statement. In any case, you should have discussed this with the closing admin, BEFORE bringing it here. Often times, issues can be resolved quicker and easier by simply talking to people. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@RoySmith:, thank you. I'm not sure what the proper protocol was for deletion reviews and how formal this is. I did separately reach out to the XfD closing admin via their Talk page, to see which method is preferable, so I'm wondering if we might leave this open to see if admin is amenable to modifying, slightly, the language used in the rationale. If not, then there might be merit to keeping it open. So, maybe, call it a Pended until X where X represents the response from the closing admin?--Doug Mehus (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review is a rather heavyweight process, in the sense that a review lasts for a week and may involve many people. I see that you opened a conversation with the closing admin, but you did it after you initiated the review. Reviews are generally considered somewhat confrontational; it's basically a public way of saying, "I accuse this person of making a mistake, and I want you all to back me up on that". That's usually a last resort, only when you can't reach an accommodation via just talking to them. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Oh, I didn't realize that. Despite notionally not being a bureaucracy, Wikipedia does have the appearances of a bureaucracy, so assumed I had to go that route. Can I close this deletion review as the originator in a non-admin closure, without prejudice to bringing forth a deletion review in the future if concerned with the consensus formed (not saying that's my opinion, but just speaking hypothetically)?--Doug Mehus (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as long as we are here, but not sure why we are here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as moot I don't really think there's anything to see here so far/nothing really to endorse, but having read through the AfD and wishing to respond to the user bringing this here, I do want to mention that I believe the sources brought to the discussion clearly pass
  WP:RENOM will be available in the future, but I wouldn't waste my time with that personally. SportingFlyer T·C 05:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

WP:GNG, but the outstanding question is whether there's enough material to write a quality Wikipedia article. That's very much an open question, I think. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:GNG on other grounds. I simply disagree there's any immediate recourse at DRV, and in any case, I've added some more sources to the main article just to insulate it from a further deletion discussion. There's plenty of coverage out there on this bank that's not routine business sources, especially in academic books and papers. SportingFlyer T·C 08:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse Thanks to Sporting Flyer for the worthwhile improvements. The notability guidelines are to guide our thoughts towards improving articles and to get rid of spam and dross, not to force us into deleting potentially worthwhile articles.
  WP:CORPDEPTH was written in response to the dreadful amount of promotional material being created but it is presently rather over-reaching and will be ameliorated in due course. Thincat (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Closing admin comment I have been requested by the nominator to change my AfD closing statement. I've taken a re-look and believe my closing statement is balanced and need not be changed. If consensus here wishes me to change it or to re-open the AfD, I'll follow that. Thanks, Lourdes 10:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Daur (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article was nominated for speedy deletion and deleted one minute after being nominated, not allowing any time to contest speedy deletion. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Admins with an access to earlier versions of the article will know whether A7 was a proper deletion for it, but I would advise you to develop a draft at
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn The article included the statement In 2015 she was a recipient of the New Faces Award by
  A7. Note that A7 says: The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (emphasis added) And while it is not stated in the CSD text, I for one think it is poor practice to delete for A7 minutes after a page is created, when the creator may still be actively editing and a claim of significance may be added soon. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Marc Sellam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

One of the most notable French CEO in Education. Founder of IONIS Education Group, the biggest group for higher Education in France. A lot of sources : https://amp.lefigaro.fr/economie/2007/11/01/04001-20071101ARTFIG90062-marc_sellam_maitre_des_ecoles_superieures_privees_en_france.php ; https://www.letudiant.fr/educpros/actualite/marc-sellam-ionis-doit-rester-une-entreprise-familiale.html ; https://www.capcampus.com/interview-505/interview-de-marc-sellam-president-et-fondateur-du-groupe-ionis-a11322.htm ; etc 92.184.97.17 (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Clear delete at the AfD - could not have been closed any other way - and the articles presented don't change the
  WP:GNG analysis (interviews, et cetera.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse the AfD result, though I have to say that
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse This AfD really could not have been closed any other way. It may be that the person is in fact notable, but more than one editor said that a search for sources turned up nothing better. It may be that there are sources not yet found, perhaps in French or off-line or both, but
  WP:BEFORE seems to have been complied with, and that is all one can ask. There should be no Rcorsini54rohibition on starting a new version if an editor can find better sources, and it should be OK to draftify this if an editor seriously intends to work on this and expects to find and cite better sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse as a valid conclusion at AFD. No Consensus would have been valid, but the question is whether the closer made a valid judgment, which is yes. Again, an article on the French Wikipedia has been deleted, and the same unregistered editor is appealing for both of them. Is there a
  Terms of Use issue (since the TOU applies to both French and English)? Try getting an article accepted in French first. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I dislike this debate. I'm disturbed by the extent to which new user EulerObama is throwing his weight around, and I think his behaviour was heavy-handed and unwelcoming in ways that we didn't approve of when I joined Wikipedia. There's a lot in that discussion that makes me wonder whether the sources were reviewed by people who could actually read the language. In particular, EulerObama's statement early in the debate that "The article in Le figaro is a brief description of the company in particular" is simply counterfactual. The IP users' interventions were, I suspect, discounted due to SPA tags and I'm not convinced that was strictly right.

  However, overturning is too strong a reaction. M. Sellam's article was deleted from fr.wiki as a result of

  Marc Sellam to point to IONIS Education Group.—S Marshall T/C 21:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Nicolas Sadirac (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Very famous gentleman. I had a quick look on Google and there is a biography on the government portal : https://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/rencontres-rh-de-l-armee-de-terre/1re-rencontres-rh/biographie-des-intervenants/biographie-de-nicolas-sadirac 92.184.97.72 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. French person, French sources. Write an acceptable French Wikipedia article first. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Nicolas Sadirac has been delete four times. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. SmokeyJoe's argument notwithstanding, if the gov't biography is the only source available then odds are he doesn't
  WP:BLP1E is a factor. —v^_^v ^{Make your position clear!} 07:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Certainly not 'famous'. The French govt. source alone is not sufficient (and looks as if it were partially written by the subject). Google searches don't provide anything reliable except some controversy surrounding the subject. I'm not an admin at fr.Wiki so I can't see the deleted content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Lightly attended AfD, but a clear delete, and no new decent sources have been presented to overturn/recommend a draft/et cetera. SportingFlyer T·C 10:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - As noted, Delete was the proper conclusion by the closer. It appears that the title has been deleted four times from the
  game the system by getting an article in English when the article has been repeatedly excluded from the French Wikipedia. This looks like vexatious litigation. Should we order some Breton sea salt? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Young Sinatra: Undeniable (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no strong rationale for delete over redirect, therefore, this should default to redirect in order to keep the page history. Jax 0677 (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing sysop: As I explained when I was asked, those suggesting keep offer no policy based reason for their keeps and I gave their !votes the weight that they they deserved. The delete !votes offered policy based rationales and I have their !votes the weight that they deserved. In the end this came out to a delete consensus. I certainly believe in
  WP:ATD but relisting for another week so agreement for a redirect target could be reached (but which consensus might still be delete and redirect) did not seem wise. However, noting that someone could make a redirect after deletion was important and I noted as such in my close. What I did not explain to Jax when asked, and should have, is that the number of previous deletions also factored into my decision to delete now rather than relisting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Jax asked on AN for this page to be restored while the DRV occurs which I have done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The closer's rationale is reasonable. In the absence of consensus on where to redirect, should we redirect it to
  dev/null or to a bit bucket? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Reply - The two choices given were the artist page, or the discography page. If in doubt, it can be discussed, or a coin can be flipped. --Jax 0677 (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - closer used a correct rationale. The consensus based on actual policy positions was to delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close explicitly mentioned no prejudice against creating a redirect, and the close itself was fine - not really sure how we got to DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 10:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I generally prefer ATD as well, but there was only one person advocating for redirect and they did so without giving a preference. With four days to go in the AfD, there were no new comments or changes of opinions. The delete !votes cited NALBUM and GNG concerns, and the two keep rationales were basically of the ILIKEIT ilk (in fact one of the keeps agreed with the deletes that it failed NALBUM and offered no policy-based counterargument). The article has been deleted twice at AFD now, so I think we've reached the point where it's not a redirect with possibilities, and therefore I don't see a need to retain the article history. A simple redirect is all that is required here, so if that is desired, by all means create one to your preferential target. CThomas³ (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I honestly vote to redirect to the artist discography rather than delete the entire page. Besides, shouldn't it be best to not lose articles on an artist discography or history in general because once we do, people will soon forget about them? Idk, I don't really use Wikipedia as a forum so take it as you will. No matter, my vote stands to keep it as a redirect rather than lose the entire page history, and if I wanted, I'd revert the history but "tHaT's AgAiNsT pOlIcY!" and whatnot, so fine have it your way then. -AB365 (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Song Like You (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

Insufficient discussion for multiple pages which should have resulted in "No Consensus" Jax 0677 (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion was relisted twice, there is no sense relisting indefinitely. As the closer said, you can try to establish consensus via talk pages if you think a different result is appropriate. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with AfD closer. While there was limited participation, despite it being relisted twice, the rationale to redirect was sound.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

/* Song Like You */

• Reply - There was no strong consensus to redirect, therefore, the default should be "Keep (No Consensus)". I agree with Nfitz, but only with respect to overturning all articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Song Like You but Overturn remaining articles. None of the other articles were ever tagged with an AFD notice - how then can they be included? At the same time, there is no reason for an editor not to simply redirect the articles, after the overturn - but they shouldn't be logged as redirect as per AFD. Also no reason for editors to improve the original articles, to establish notability - if there is any. Nfitz (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as to
  train. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn to No Result for the other articles. If someone wants to nominate them, they can nominate them. They were never properly discussed. This is not a closer error so much as a nominator error (although maybe the closer should have noticed that the bundle was improperly bundled). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse for
  Song Like You. Overturn the other articles due to procedural impropriety (no AFD tag added to the articles) with option to relist. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Song Like You but Overturn remaining articles per Nfitz. – Levivich 03:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Endorse-ish - I probably would've closed as no consensus - there's a lot of asserting back and forth about NOTNEWS, though it's not straightforwardly applicable and they're largely just asserted opinion - more detail on the review of security procedures could push that argument; as it stands, it's extremely skimpy, but not wholly untenable, so it's hard for a closing admin to strongly favour either position as a closer. The tenor of the discussion also changed after the re-write, which means a straight headcount would be inappropriate. WilyD 12:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse-ish. My habit, when there's been substantial work on the article late in the discussion, is relist to allow additional consideration of the changes. I agree that no consensus might have been a better close, but I can't get too excited about the difference between Keep and NC. I reject SportingFlyer's thesis that NC would make it easier to renominate in the future. That's invoking
  WP:ADMINACCT. I wouldn't object to voiding the close and relisting this, but I can't argue that it's necessary. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  WP:RENOM in practice), any renomination of this article would have to explicitly deal with the fact it had been previously kept on similar grounds. If I see an article has been nominated for a second time and it was kept the first time, I will generally query as to what has changed which would cause the article to need to be deleted now. I don't think overturning this to no consensus (or relisting) is that big of an ask, either, as I don't think this could have been kept based on the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong ugh- drip feeding sources to invalidate previous votes? Check. Insulting disdain expressed towards anyone !voting delete? Check. Supervote by a subsequently unresponsive admin? Check. This isn't going to get overturned, but it's also emblematic of everything that's wrong with AfD. Reyk _YO! 16:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist - There are two concerns. First, the close was definitely in the nature of a supervote. However, second, it appears that the Delete and the Keep were in response to two versions of the article. That calls for a Relist with the new version of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we complain about supervotes every time a closing admin explains what they're doing, all we get is an opaque set of unexplained decisions. Indeed, in cases like this, it's helpful for the closing admin to explain how they read the discussion, so we can see if there's some error in their read. Slagging them for trying to be helpful isn't helpful. WilyD 05:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist it doesn't sound like Lightburst's edits were that persuasive, given that two people who commented afterwards supported deletion and SportingFlyer wasn't convinced either. A relist would allow more of a focus on that version. Adding more sources doesn't necessarily address a NOTNEWS argument either, because the point of NOTNEWS is that something which gets a short burst of news coverage may not be encyclopedic. The comment by the closer that "The sources added to the article appear to satisfy both WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT" suggests a
  expected to justify their actions when asked as well. Hut 8.5 20:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Perfectly reasonable sensible close. The article was substantially improved during the course of the AfD, with supportive responses during the later half of the AfD. This calls for a close, not a relist. Give it time to settle. Follow the advice at
  WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak endorse. Like some others, I would have closed it as NC, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the closing admin was supervoting because he mentioned EVENTCRIT. After all, participants had debated whether the event was of lasting significance and others cited international reporting, so although "EVENTCRIT" per se wasn't mentioned in the discussion, it was certainly being alluded to in regards to notability.  JGHowes  ^talk 02:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Looks like a classic case of
  WP:HEYMANN to me. Nominator and early voters see completely unreferenced article, that seems trivial, fail to do due diligence, and say delete. Someone comes along, Significantly improves the article with a lot of GNG sources over an extended period of time (from three OTHER continents - what, could no one find one from Africa or South America :). A relist would surely lead to an unambiguous keep. Nfitz (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and relist I had been watching that article to see whether it would get relisted or closed as no consensus. I don't disagree with the improvement that has occurred but think, especially as one !vote for delete came after the improvement, the closing sysop cannot just say that it has become a keep consensus. An explanation is certainly necessary here and I am thankful Tone gave one, but I do not think that explanation sufficient for the consensus shown here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist – with the article having been changed significantly during the discussion, more time should be given to participants to review the new sources and see if it changes their !vote. It's true that when a closer says "sources [meet/don't meet] GNG", the closer is supervoting – commenting on the notability of the article subject, rather than on the discussion. "Consensus is the sources [meet/don't meet] GNG" is an entirely different statement, though, and I think a lot of closers write the former when they mean the latter. In any case, this discussion would have benefitted from more time to allow consensus to crystallize. – Levivich 04:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Starting a DRV to get a keep overturned to no consensus is a complete waste of everybody's time. There's no rule saying a keep closure can't be renominated at a later date either, and
  consensus can change. Smartyllama (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That's why I asked for a relist first :) SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:RENOM? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @SmokeyJoe: No. I'm asking for either the discussion to be relisted so the late-arriving keep arguments can be addressed, or in the alternative the close changed to a no consensus to both reflect the discussion more accurately and make it easier to renominate for deletion in the future. SportingFlyer T·C 01:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well Smartyllama wrote "renominated" and you replied as if "relisted" was a synonym. The AfD isn't complicated by "late-arriving keep arguments", but by stubstantive changes to the sourcing that probably render the PROD, AfD nomination and early !votes non-applicable. Better to let it settle for a short amount of time. Also, noting the nominator's reference to "news" and delete !voters reference to WP:NOTNEWS, letting the article sit until some times passes, enabling an observation of whether all sources belong to a brief burst of news, seems to be to be more sensible than rushing a 1 week old topic. The page is now approaching four weeks. I think a much clearer result will be obtained by waiting a few weeks and renominating. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I responded to Smartyllama since they seemed to assume my only request was overturning a keep to a no consensus. I'm fine with a result here which would allow a renomination in a few weeks. Also, it's likely I misunderstand your latter reasoning, but the event itself happened in 2010, so it should be relatively easy to determine
  WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 01:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse proper XfD close.
  WP:HEY Lightburst (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and relist - precisely per Hut 8.5. -- Begoon 20:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse After improvements to the article were made there were 5 that said keep and 2 that said delete. It wasn't just the ample sources talking about this but also this being a notable case. How often has someone been caught wearing a silicon masks to impersonate someone else to get past airport security? The two nations involved had to review their security procedures and try to work out how to prevent this in the future. The closing administrator read what everyone said and stated it passed WP:EVENTCRIT, which it does, this a notable event obviously. Dream Focus 21:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse proper XfD close.
  WP:HEY Per reasoning of User:Dream Focus and User:SmokeyJoe 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Islamic Education Institute of Texas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I was never notified of the speedy deletion of this article, first created in 2010, until after it already occurred, and I dispute the characterization of "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Note that Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G11._Unambiguous_advertising_or_promotion states: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." I reviewed the deleted article and do not see how the text is promotional. Please refer to the talk page User_talk:WhisperToMe#Islamic_Education_Institute_of_Texas. @Jimfbleak:@Liz:

BTW, some background: This is the Islamic school controlled by the Islamic Society of Greater Houston - I wrote an article about the organization too, and the organization itself is dicussed in multiple reliable sources, mainly from newspapers. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G11. This wasn't a great article, and might not even survive AfD were it not for our silliness about keeping all secondary schools just because they exist, but I sure don't see how this is unambiguous advertising or promotion. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 Even if I read this with my most SPAM colored glasses on I can't get to G11. I think there could be a version of a private school that was G11 but this isn't it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 maybe the word "serves" is slightly promotional jargon-y for schools, but otherwise it's a completely neutral article, so far as I can see. Substituting "educates" or the like for "serves" a couple of times is in no sense a "fundamental rewrite". WilyD 05:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is there a way that non-administrators can express a view? I can't see the article. It appears that admins want to overturn the G11. Please notify us non-admins if the article is restored so that we can participate in the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for bringing this up. I've refrained from commenting for that reason alone. (Well, that and being generally busy.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'm surprised neither of you know about

WP:DRV#Temporary undeletion, which I've just done. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, Roy! I found a reference about the school being denied a place on a private school athletic league (and accusations that the decision was done as a bias against the Islamic religion), so I'd like to add it when I can. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this goes where it looks like it's going, the article will be restored at the end of the review period (normally, one week), and you can make your changes then. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I don't see anything promotional about the article, and certainly nothing which would justify a G11 speedy deletion. Hut 8.5 22:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn and send to AfD. Discussing the details of sourcing and promotion is for AfD, not DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 and do not list at AfD. If anyone wants to nominate this for an AfD, they can do so directly and make a proper nomination statement. I see noting even slightly promotional in the last version of this. A purely factual article, well supported by sources. i also note it was never tagged for G11, apparently the deleting admin deleted without any other editor weighing in, rather than tagging it for review by a 2nd admin, as is best practice. I would like to hear any policy-based argument for deleting this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, DES, I am assuming that there is the speedy deleting admin who genuinely believes that the page should be deleted; when challenged, this admin should undelete and list at AfD given their reasons, it should not have to come via DRV, let alone be formally discussed and closed at DRV. If the deleting admin does not continue to maintain that the page needs to be deleted, as I think I read below, then no, do not list at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thanks for ping. Looks as if I got this wrong, possibly influenced by the fact that a problematic editor had been involved at this page too. However, I'm happy for the article to be restored and improved Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak:, the simplest thing is if you just revert your deletion yourself. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy Smith:, but you've already restored the page, so surely just need this review to be closed, preferably not by me? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Jim wrote on my talk page that he's OK if the review is closed as a SNOW @Liz: WhisperToMe (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 and do not list at AfD. Reading this article, and looking at it's almost decade-long edit history, I'm completely baffled how it comes close to meeting any speedy category, let alone G11 ... seems like a bog-standard article. Also hard to imagine how a K to 13 school with over 1,000 students wouldn't be notable. Article should be improved and expanded. Nfitz (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Mark Dougan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

John Mark Dougan has received exhaustive media attention. The article is well written, well sourced. I am requesting a copy of the deleted article by email to show the number of reliable sources that were deleted. Only four people voted in the AfD. The article has been in existence for years, and only recently there is more media attention (44 articles on google news) on this former Flordia sheriff who immigrated to Russia claiming corruption. Moscowdreams (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Moscowdreams: Procedurally I don't really think the AfD was defective, maybe on the lightly attended side, and the deleting admin's talk page makes a claim you already have the text. What's your goal here at DRV? SportingFlyer T·C 02:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same question from me. There's already a copy at User:Moscowdreams#John Mark Dougan. What exactly are you requesting? RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting that the article be undeleted. There is a lot of media coverage on this individual. There is also Russian wikipedia page which is has many more references. Moscowdreams (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse in the absence of a stronger argument. Either Delete or Relist would have been reasonable, so Delete was reasonable. A request for an email copy is made at
  Requests for Undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and Relist based on very low participation in the AfD. The AfD only lasted a week, and could have benefited from a relist. Lightburst (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The nomination identifies no procedural defect. Sandstein 07:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse- I can't fault the close, consensus was clear, and this nomination doesn't provide anything new.
  talk) 10:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Rupert Dover (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Rupert Dover is the first police commander who asked the police to open fire towards Hong Kong citizens since 1967, thus have historical importance. He is, therefore, a key-person regarding the history of Hong Kong as well as the police-citizen relationship. He especially plays an important role as the Hong Kong police force was accused of so much police brutality in just a few months after his decision to open fire on June 12, 2019, and those accuses are much more than the sum of the past decades. Besides, he has more than 4 millions Google search result.--習振英 (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice quoting your search's got there. —
  Cryptic 05:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - The appellant appears to be re-arguing the AFD rather than taking issue with the close, and Delete was the only possible finding by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - DRV is for determining whether there was an error in the closing of an AfD. It is not for just re-arguing the AfD. Reyk _YO! 06:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue where we deal with errors made in the deletion process. It is not a de novo appeal or opportunity to argue points that were, or could have been, made at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Not the best attended AfD, but consensus is clear, and I don't want to advocate for a relist when it's also fairly clear the fact
  WP:G10 could be applicable means we're better off keeping this deleted as opposed to giving it a chance. SportingFlyer T·C 11:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse AfD is fine and I don't see any good reason for revisiting it here. Having lots of Google hits doesn't mean anything in itself. If his only significance is in being in charge of the police response to the protests then we definitely shouldn't have an article on him per
  WP:BLP1E especially as the article was being used as a mechanism to attack him for it. Events relating to the protests should be covered in the article(s) about them. Hut 8.5 17:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Disagree with the !vote mentioning CSD#G10, the google cache shows an innocuous senior police offer stub. No WP:BLP issues. The sources are poor, I see an unambiguous WP:BIO1E with respect to coverage of the Hong Kong riots. The article could have been redirected, but the decision to delete was sound. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @SmokeyJoe: the article was edited the day before it was deleted to remove almost all the content related to the protests. Hut 8.5 10:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't find any mention of Dover in the history of
  2019 Hong Kong protests. Was the biography created as a WP:Orphan? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Although I wouldn't want to challenge the outcome of that AfD, I do think that if someone's name has 10k+ google hits then it's a plausible search term on Wikipedia and we can do better than leaving it as a redlink. Maybe Rupert Dover's name should redirect to the article about the protests?—S Marshall T/C 16:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is not mentioned anywhere in any article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's easily fixed, to be fair.—S Marshall T/C 22:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sedimentary isostasy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi: I have removed sections about Chronosomes and their significance from Draft Sedimentary isostasy and have added a new section about the structural significance of Herschel’s interpretation. This supports my contention that the explanation of the relationship between North Sea stratigraphy & structure and the erosion surfaces on the Scandian Mountains is of considerable current interest. Please discuss any remaining problems that editors foresee before reinstating it to the main Wiki section. Geologician (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of aid from Lewis Tappan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Turning this category into a list is a great idea (I had it too) but impractical. To make a list of these names would mean creating a footnote documenting every one. This is possible, but it would entail a lot of work and time which then could not be used on other more valuable Wikipedia improvements. I really believe the list is useful and does no harm, and I think others working on Louis Tappan would agree. deisenbe (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As the closing admin, I was in no way consulted before this DRV was filed. MER-C 10:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Link corrected from "Louis" to "Lewis". – Fayenatic London 10:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse having an unsourced list isn't the end of the world and judging from a few random entries the category isn't sourced either when it is included. Hut 8.5 18:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Hut 8.5 - this really isn't something we'd have as a category, but rather as a list, and though it's a bit of work a list with footnotes helps those interested in the topic to quickly find references. SportingFlyer T·C 05:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Done: I have made a simple list at Lewis_Tappan#Philanthropy. – Fayenatic London 15:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting the unanimous consensus above and
  WP:CLN-compliant solution already put into place, this may be a candidate for a speedy close?—S Marshall T/C 16:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Reasonable close. Nothing is deleted. Post-listification, recreation of the category can be discussed and done by consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, obviously, but I'm really here to comment about sourcing. The XfD was nominally about
  WP:V, and that's incorrect. And, if it's not WP:V as a category, reformatting it as a list doesn't fix that. I've added sources for a few of the entries in the newly-created Lewis_Tappan#Philanthropy, but the other entries need references as well, or they should be removed as unsourced. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Ugh, this really is a mess. I've been researching the list entries. While there's no doubt that all of these people/entities were somehow associated with Tappan, it's a real stretch to say they all received aid (which I assume means Tappan gave them money. This is why we have
    WP:V, and don't just shuffle statements around willy-nilly, assuming that if it's said someplace in Wikipedia, it must be true and thus can be used in another place. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Mark_Kritzman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Mr. Kritzman, while an accomplished businessman has a page that does not meet the criteria for WP:NACADEMICS; the article itself

• Send to AfD- It's been four years since this one was closed. I think it could be re-visited, especially since the problems pointed out in the last AfD were never addressed. Reyk _YO! 17:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close per a failure of
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Portal:Victoria (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am seeking for the MfD to be reopened to be listed for a further time. MfD was closed with no reasons given by the closer, there were only three nominations for deletion, one of which violated

• Comment I'm not really sure what to do here. General consensus has been portals are okay and worth keeping, consensus at MfD has been strong delete, but the guidelines for keeping or deleting portals have been incredibly vague and end up along the lines of
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I would have no problem with draftifying the portal, but I'm not sure that's possible. SportingFlyer T·C 04:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

SF, draftifying is possible, tho it may involve a little more than a simple move. To test this earlier this, I created Portal:Ballyporeen, which I moved first to Portal:Incubator — Ballyporeen, 'cos I had been exploring the possibility of a pseudo-namespace for portal drafts. Then I moved it to User:BrownHairedGirl/Incubator — Ballyporeen. I found that it needed only a v few tweaks to restore full functionality. An older portal may not move quite so neatly, but any issues could be resolved with a simple AWB run.

However, I really doubt the merits of doing so. A long-abandoned set of stale content forks and stale DYKs is not worth keeping. Wikipedia:WikiProject Victoria is inactive, and even tho its talk page has never been archived, it contains zero mentions of "Portal:Victoria". Its only post which makes any mention of the bare word "portal" is 2018 announcement by TTH. In the unlikely event that the WikiProject a) revived, and b) chose to try to build a portal, it would do much better to start from a blank slate, without a set of long-abandoned pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as one of the participants in the MFD, and as the editor who provided the data that is being referred to. No one took any issue with any of the data that I had provided on any Australian state portals. The issue had to do with comments concerning US state portals, and in particular with statements that there had been no maintenance that did not reflect very recent
  Article Rescue Squadron work on portals. There was not and does not appear to be any question about any information that was used in the deletion debate. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - that's not correct. I've commented twice on MfDs involving Australian states that the data is not up to date because it uses transcluded pages that have been updated. You can't use out of date data to suggest pages haven't been edited when they have (regardless of whether it's the page in question or comparison pages). Bookscale (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist this MfD was not well attended
  WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I think it would benefit from a relist. Lightburst (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment- did you discuss this with the closer before bringing it here? Reyk _YO! 19:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Sufficient participation for yet another routine deletion of a useless portal. Encourage anyone who cares for the history to request undeletion into a subpage of a WikiProject, but as a Portal there was a clear case of failure and abandonment, making it a meance for readers. NB. Victoria is ambiguous. I have to guess whether this is about the Australian State, or the 19 century Empress, or even something else. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The portal is about the state. The state is named for the Empress and was part of her empire. The MFD made it clear that it was about the Australian state, because the MFD included the portal view metrics that some of the editors dislike, comparing portals on Australian states. I agree that ambiguous portal names, such as New York or Washington or Georgia, are potentially troublesome, and that Wikipedia does a very good job of disambiguating articles, but portals are not articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- routine deletion of an abandoned portal. Consensus at the AfD was clear. Reyk _YO! 07:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• relist. When the IDONTLIKEPORTALS and similar comments are discounted there was no consensus for or against deletion of this portal. Assertions that we should or should not have portals of any given type or state or quality really should not be given any weight in these discussions because it is clear there is no community consensus underpinning them. Only arguments that address why the individual portal under discussion should or should not be deleted AND which are based on policy are relevant and there was almost none of them in this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per Thryduulf. Discussions should be based on the actual evidence at hand, and community consensus on the principles of portals, not personal opinions on the matter. As such, !votes that don't address the matter at hand should be discuonted, and there was as yet no consensus.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per Thryduulf. There is no community consensus supporting the idea that portals on states should be deleted, or that portals with fewer than X pageviews should be deleted, so those comments aren't based on anything other than personal preference. Hut 8.5 10:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Notifying User:Nemo bis, User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Crossroads, User:Catfurball. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Routine deletion of an abandoned portal. The MFD was open for the full 7 days (actually just over 8 days), and was duly notified. Nobody !voted to keep it. The closer correctly weighed the consensus. The only !vote which came anywhere close to IDONTLIKEIT was that by Catfurball, who didn't explain their reasoning. So even discounting that one, there was still a clear consensus to delete.

There are no guidelines on which portals should exist, so at MFD editors have been consistently applying

WP:COMMONSENSE

criteria:

1. A very broad topic
2. High readership (not as much as the head articles, which usually have readership in the thousands, but preferably over a hundred, and if not then close enough to make acheiving that target a plausible goal)
3. Active maintenance by multiple maintainers
4. Plenty of high-quality articles within scope
5. Active support from an active WikiProject

There are comments above by a few uncritical fans of portals, who engage in their usual smear-game of denouncing as IDONTLIKE any set of reasoned criteria, while asserting without either reasoning or evidence bizarre assumptions of their own.

This DRV is just another round of wikilawyering by editors who don't even try to establish any basis for asserting that an almost-unread, long abandoned pseudo-portal with an absurd design serves any purpose for the small number readers to whom it serves long-outdated content.

These would-be-wikilawyers consistently miss the simple core issues here: that

WP:COMMONSENSE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - with respect, BrownHairedGirl, comments such as "smear campaigns" are unfair and unhelpful. I disagree that you and others have been using "common sense" arguments - every MfD you start with a comment saying "I don't want to pre-judge the outcome" and a request to keep backlinks when the page is deleted. I'm supportive of an AfC about the merits of keeping portals, but the one-by-one deletion approach is not helpful. Bookscale (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. If you choose to ignore the the substance of reasoned arguments, and instead smear them as IDONTLIKEIT, then expect that choice to be noted.

It's strange to see an objection to the existence of an explicitly non-prejudicial proposal for how to handle backlinks. The alternative is for that decision to be made without discussion, and or in a less prominent place, which would not fit well with the principle of consensus.

And finally, as above, if you want to open an RFC to propose that we to establish WP:KEEPCRAPPPORTALS as a guideline, then feel free to make that proposal. But in the meantime, you have made no rationale to explain why you think readers would be helped by keeping an unread, unmaintained, unsupported, badly-designed portal on a narrow topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse – nobody !voted "keep". I see three well-reasoned delete !votes. It's as well-attended as any other MfD. Not sure how this could have been closed in any other way. – Levivich 18:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment as
      WP:ILIKEIT Keep !votes, just comments. That is enough for a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Relist because I'm feeling in a
  WP:IAR mood today. I agree that the XfD was closed properly, but there's no harm it letting people talk about this for another week. The most likely outcome is it'll still get deleted, but at least that'll provide some closure here. As for BHG's and Levivich's comments, Nobody !voted to keep it, it's true that nobody wrote keep in bold letters at the front of a new paragraph with a bullet in front of it, but it's clear that Bookscale was arguing to keep it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse as participant. Most of the relist voters' claims that the delete votes in the MfD should be disregarded, or that it somehow goes against a community consensus, are entirely unsupported. Sadly we do not have a GNG for portals, so we use common sense, as pointed out; else we would be unable to vote keep or delete on portals. There is no community consensus to not delete individual portals that have failed. The purpose of this is to examine the consensus of the MfD. No reason to relist if the consensus was correctly ascertained. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that no consensus was established either way. Most of the !votes rely on applying a community consensus about portals in general that simply does not exist. Similarly there is no agreement on what "common sense" means regarding portals in general - to most of those in favour of deleting large numbers of portals it is "common sense" that a portal on a "narrow" topic that doesn't receive many views is "failed" and/or "unsuitable" as a portal topic. However to those who do not subscribe to that view of portals in general none of that is "common sense" at all in the same way that it is not "common sense" to delete a niche article that simply needs work. There was almost no discussion of the merits of this portal specifically independently of other portals and/or portals in general and certainly far too little to arrive at a consensus for anything. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• On the contrary, the nominator and the first two !voters to delete did specifically address the failings of the portal under discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Could you please explain what you think would be an acceptable basis for deleting a portal? If no such basis exists in your mind, then you're just promulgating a nonexistent KEEPALLPORTALS with a thinly veiled ILIKEIT. The votes did not appeal to any community consensus; consensuses to delete, and sometimes to keep, are established at each MfD, which are public and duly notified. The comparison to poor articles is inappropriate and this has been explained countless times. Articles are content, thus even flawed ones typically add some value. Portals are not content, so if they are broken and little used, there is no sense keeping them and wasting time on them. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: Let this be a note to ALL portal advocates: Nobody's saying that all portals should be deleted, just that there are too many poorly-performing ones, and those should be deleted. This portal was one of them. ToThAc (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Grime (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted at AfD five years ago, currently salted because of repeated recreation. There's a current draft at Draft:James Grime which I think is just about good enough for recreation – and speaking from my wheelhouse, I believe Grime just passes WP:N these days – but I'd rather get a feel from everyone else. Sceptre (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the draft a submission to make it an article was declined in May, has anything changed since then?--67.68.29.177 (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Very promotional person. Mathematician with H-index=2. Collection of trivia.
  WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Unsalt the deleted versions were very short, cited few sources, and what sources they did cite were largely not independent of the subject. The AfD is five years old and as a result it's harder to use it as justification for keeping the article deleted. I'm not at all sure the subject is notable but I think there's enough here for a new AfD. Hut 8.5 11:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt to allow draft - See the comment by the closer of the original AFD that it was likely that additional sources would establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robert McClenon, how does "Unsalt to allow draft" make sense. The draft is already there to look at. The question is whether to allow a proponent to unilaterally re-create. It is failing AfC approval. It has a history in mainspace that justified the salt. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalt in article space so that the draft can be reviewed. This does not mean that the draft is or is not ready to accept. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to unsalt to review, unless you mean to promote so that we can take it to AfD? Promotional,

WP:Reference bombed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Unsalt in article space now, because we are here and can do it. My own opinion is that the draft is not currently ready for article space, but that the reviewer should be able to use the regular Accept script when it is ready, rather than having to do go to

Requests for Un-Protection. I do not like the idea of promoting in order to take to AFD. But the reviewer should be free to use the Accept script if she wants to use it. Other than unsalting, nothing needs to be done here at DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment This really is about whether it's properly salted considering there's a draft ready to go. Personally, I would not accept
  WP:GNG independent/secondary requirements, which I don't think would change anything, just make it easier to apply - and I don't think anything here qualifies.) However, I don't truly mind if it's unsalted/goes to an AfD/et cetera - just noting I don't believe there's any current reason to unsalt, based on what we have available - nor do I think there would be any reason to keep it salted if someone's ready to accept it to mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 12:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Unsalt overly promotional is not a reason to prevent creation, it is a reason to improve the article. The article has been improving and there is not a reason to believe it will not be improved enough for inclusion in the main space. Per the XfD closer Unlike a lot of deletions at AfD which are stable, there is a feeling from the 'delete' comments in this debate that there's every chance that, in the future, the level of reliable sources to assert notability may increase, at which point I encourage a review of whether the article can be recreated and fulfil the notability guidelines relevant to his field(s).Lightburst (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeated re-creation in an unacceptable form in mainspace is a justification for the salting. "Overly promotional" for a previously AfD deleted article is a good reason to require use of AfC. They are using AfC without joy, and this DRV is a request to enable sidestepping AfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt I came across the draft version a few days ago, and had actually asked the original protecting admin
  WP:NPROF at this time. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I have unsalted it. --rogerd (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I have gone ahead and approved the draft to mainspace. If someone would like to nominate for AfD, they certainly could, but I believe the subject to be notable. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Grime (2nd nomination). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rockwell Scharer III (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Dear Wikipedia administrators, i hereby, request you undelete the article. The article was wrongly deleted by an editor (GSS), i am unable to link any xfd, because the article was deleted directly without deletion discussion process and made it a draft page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rockwell_Scharer I tried to understand what was wrong. He mentioned violation of TOU in the deletion log and tagged the article with undisclosed paid editing. But it's wrong again. I wasn't paid for the editing, i used to be a part of Mr. Scharer's DropKey Studio project and created the article after he won an Edison awards for the project. Scharer previously worked at NBCUniversal Media and Live Nation Entertainment and as a software engineer he designed the cost-tracking systems for the Space Shuttle at Rockwell International and for motion pictures at Paramount Pictures. I had disclosed the COI relation in the talk page already. I believe it's okay now. I contacted Mr. Sharer about the issue and he has provided an affadavit regarding the matter. I can't attach it here, so i have uploaded it here https://www.sendspace.com/file/nzgrmf I hope this solves the issue. Please undelete and restore the article to mainspace. I seek your assistance here. 43.245.122.242 (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ask
  WP:AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Block evasion? Yes, and I have filled the SPI. Regarding undisclosed paid editing, your accounts were blocked for the same. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The exact nature of the
  conflict of interest is not important. The sockpuppetry is important. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The page exists at Draft:Rockwell Scharer, so it has not, strictly speaking, been deleted. I don't think this is the right venue to request a move back to mainspace. —C.Fred (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando's Summer of Love (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted with reasoning that was evidently entirely meritless as shown in discussions and below.

Orlando, Florida's Summer of love was a notable cultural movement in Orlando that was similar to the

Illegitimate arguments and reasoning (ones that should be deemed meritless by

I have asked the deleting administrator at AfD for assistance. However there has not been clarifying reply to date and I'm not sure whether the editor does not seem to havehas a willingness to further engage as shown on his talk page.

After I left a message on the nominating editors talk page containing strong policy guidance to request clarification, there were responses from him (in addition to other editors) and threeVERY extended discussions followed in which I made the requisite policy founded arguments.

1. Policy discussion at RFU.
2. Further discussion with the nominating editor on my talk page (before it too went south).
3. Discussion with RdU/DRV involved Editor

I do not wish to

The last determination for Deletion Review is the question of whether an article about the notable Orlando era should be titled "Orlando's Summer of Love" as reported- now in four sources separated by 24 years.

The new 2011 and 2017 source:

1. Moyer, Matthew (November 21, 2017). "Wizard of AAHZ: Orlando lord of the dance Kimball Collins is serious about throwing a party". orlandoweekly.com. The Orlando Weekly. Retrieved October 3, 2017. The last thing on DJ and Orlando dance music linchpin Kimball Collins' mind back during the fabled Orlando Summer of Love in the early 1990s was that he would someday be responsible for preserving the legacy of Florida Breaks
2. Guinto, Humberto (April 27, 2011). "I Was A Florida Raver Chapter 1 The Edge". www.clubplanet.com. Retrieved 2019-10-16. It was matched only by what hippies did at acid-parties in places like Haight-Ashbury, parties also referred to as "all night raves." ...from Miami to Orlando... The Florida rave scene was chronicled by Rolling Stone contributing editor Simon Reynolds in his seminal, rave anthology Generation Ecstasy as "infamous for taking excessive hedonism to the point of near-death experiences and sometimes taking it all the way." {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Reliable Sources used prior to deletion:

1. Kelemen, Matt (September 2, 1998). "Wizards of Aahz: The Florida winter had ju..." orlandoweekly.com. The Orlando Weekly. Retrieved November 30, 2015. Collins could not be aware of it at the time, but those Saturday nights -- eventually known as "Aahz"-- would kick-start an underground culture and spawn countless DJ careers. Orlando would never be the same...By 1991-1992, Orlando experienced its own "summer of love" through the culture that sprang up around the weekend acid-house nights at the Beacham Theatre...only New York, San Francisco and L.A. had similar scenes, and they were characterized by warehouse parties. Orlando had a headquarters in the heart of its downtown district...By the time Rolling Stone discovered the scene, late-night culture had become a shadow of its former self.
2. Guinto, Liesl (August 1, 1993). "All The Rave". orlandosentinel.com. The Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved August 16, 2016. [Orlando "Raves" in 1993 (also ATL)] A re-invented Haight-Ashbury of the 90s.

Johnvr4 (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It pains me to have to restate any of these discussion highlights but it is now very apparent that I need do.

I've added a new quote from one of the previously used citations above: [Orlando "Raves" in 1993 (also ATL)] A re-invented Haight-Ashbury of the 90s. Johnvr4 (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added yet another new source above: "It was matched only by what hippies did at acid-parties in places like Haight-Ashbury, parties also referred to as “all night raves.”

For those that are actually counting, that is now four sources over 24 year that have made the

• Endorse- the AfD clearly reached consensus to delete. There was no mistake made in the close. I'd even be tempted to salt, because we absolutely cannot have a repeat of this. Reyk _YO! 19:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but allow draft. The AfD was clear, so endorse that for sure. But, that was a year and a half ago, and apparently there's at least one new source, so there should be no objection to somebody trying to write a new article on the topic. One of the major objections at the AfD was the absurdity of the referencing, and as noted by Reyk, we can't do that again. So, I'm fine with keeping the deleted version deleted and allowing somebody to try again from scratch in draft space. And, yeah, the nomination is rather over-the-top. Let's hope that's not a harbinger of what a new draft might look like. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Properly deleted. To contest, see
  WP:TL;DR. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse firstly the OP needs to learn to write more concisely. I haven't read the entire
  WP:OR if we try to stick all these sources under the label. I would suggest that the OP either contribute to Orlando, Florida#Culture (which already has the one sentence of prose in the deleted version), start an article about the music scene in Orlando, Florida (which would likely be an encyclopedic topic) or at least write a substantial draft about the subject matter. Hut 8.5 11:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse I see nothing wrong with the AfD discussion, nor do I see any new reasons to recreate the article. As per RoySmith and Reyk, having seen the old version of the article, and having picked through this AfD nomination, I'm very concerned about allowing a new draft of the topic, not because I want to discourage the author but because there's a very good chance it will be a waste of everyone's time. SportingFlyer T·C 04:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The inclusion of the image of the subject page in the AFD was helpful, because this DRV is resembling the original article as nothing but a
  snow close out of mercy. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: I would urge the nominator to very considerably condense their argument and references in order to aid readability. More is not always better. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This filibuster is not going to help you accomplish your goal. —
  Cryptic 16:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1. Moyer, Matthew (November 21, 2017). "Wizard of AAHZ: Orlando lord of the dance Kimball Collins is serious about throwing a party". orlandoweekly.com. The Orlando Weekly. The last thing on DJ and Orlando dance music linchpin Kimball Collins' mind back during the fabled Orlando Summer of Love in the early 1990s was that he would someday be responsible for preserving the legacy of Florida Breaks
2. Guinto, Humberto (April 27, 2011). "I Was A Florida Raver Chapter 1 The Edge". www.clubplanet.com. It was matched only by what hippies did at acid-parties in places like Haight-Ashbury, parties also referred to as "all night raves." ...from Miami to Orlando... The Florida rave scene was chronicled by Rolling Stone contributing editor Simon Reynolds in his seminal, rave anthology Generation Ecstasy as "infamous for taking excessive hedonism to the point of near-death experiences and sometimes taking it all the way." {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Reliable Sources from 1993 and 1998 that were cited prior to deletion:

1. Kelemen, Matt (September 2, 1998). "Wizards of Aahz: The Florida winter had ju..." orlandoweekly.com. The Orlando Weekly. Collins could not be aware of it at the time, but those Saturday nights -- eventually known as "Aahz"-- would kick-start an underground culture and spawn countless DJ careers. Orlando would never be the same...By 1991-1992, Orlando experienced its own "summer of love" through the culture that sprang up around the weekend acid-house nights at the Beacham Theatre...only New York, San Francisco and L.A. had similar scenes, and they were characterized by warehouse parties. Orlando had a headquarters in the heart of its downtown district...By the time Rolling Stone discovered the scene, late-night culture had become a shadow of its former self.
2. Guinto, Liesl (August 1, 1993). "All The Rave". orlandosentinel.com. The Orlando Sentinel. A re-invented Haight-Ashbury of the 90s.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnvr4 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Forgot to sign Johnvr4 (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the essay on a snowballs chances, please consider the

WP:SNOWFLAKE. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC) [reply

]

Note the above was posted by the OP, User:Johnvr4, and isn't another person supporting overturning the result. Since the OP is assumed to be supporting overturning the result they aren't supposed to post "overturn" comments because that looks like a comment from someone else. Hut 8.5 17:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have unbolded the !vote and noted that it's the OP in a {{

Hover title}}.-C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

My policy based arguments were never a vote. On the other hand, endorsements without policy guidance are votes. Votes carry no weight in these discussions! Johnvr4 (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And what I'm making clear is that it's one person with two recommendations (not-a-vote or !vote), not two !votes. In AfD discussions, the normal practice is to strike the duplicate recommendation. Rather than strike your second one, I hover texted it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had moved my recommendation so it would not be counted twice. The long DRV reason still applies--its just the long version. I'm sorry if I mangled it and that I forgot to sign my abbreviated reasoning. Thank you (both) for the fixes. Johnvr4 (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Johnvr4 is appealing the original AfD. I see no problems with the close of that AfD, and I find that the arguments presented there are appropriate to the article as it existed at the time of the AfD.
  That being said, there is nothing in the AfD that prohibits creation of a new draft on the subject if the situation changes. To that end, Johnvr4 is welcome to develop a fully fleshed-out draft that gives a good demonstration—through prose about the subject, not a bombardment of sources—of how the subject is notable. The prior article may be a starting point on that path, but it is not an end point. I have no objections to the revisions being restored to Draft: space, but the deleted article should certainly not be put back into main space.—C.Fred(talk) 19:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boaz Goren (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Not notable יוניון ג'ק (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paras Tomar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article can be undeleted for many reasons . Although, page was deleted due to less notability but it was noted that this person is a person who is a well known in India . And to be included in Wikipedia, this person have longer than a decade career compromises of RJ, actor, hosting and most recent a producer . Article can be improved much better if revived keeping in mind with more protection. Article will be improved based on WP:ENT,WP:NACTOR , WP:GNG in mind to improve the page to be more neutral & less promotion in every part of article . Do help

REFERENCES FOR THE SUBJECT FOR REQUEST UNDELETION. Hope these links are valid to prove that this subject has notability for the professions claimed. Do help in the process of undeletion of this article .Thank you and appreciating a lot

• https://www.iwmbuzz.com/digital/news-digital/actor-paras-tomar-turns-producer-director-web-series-dharam-sankat/2019/10/07
• https://vancouverbroadcasters.com/TU.html
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toireporter/author-Paras-Tomar-5746,filterby-2.cms
• https://sites.ndtv.com/green-champion/about-the-anchors/
• https://www.asianage.com/life/more-features/130619/tik-tok-round-the-clock.html
• https://www.news18.com/byline/paras-tomar.html

12:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse. There was clearly a consensus in the discussion to delete, and no evidence was supplied in the AFD either. The links above look like little more than passing mentions, so are not enough to establish notability.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin here. This IP has posted a long list of links to my user talk page which I'll replicate here:

My impression was that most of these sources did not satisfy

WP:SIGCOV due to e.g being too short or unreliable but I am not familiar with any of them to categorically rule it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse. No indication that the discussion or close was flawed, and the provided links do not collectively form a compelling case to overturn. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jovialedit/Archive. --Finngall ^talk 15:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - It isn't clear whether the appellant is requesting to undelete the article as a draft in order to phutz with it, or requesting to overturn the deletion. Part of the case for deletion is made by the throw-away Keep arguments; if you can't make a better case than a lot of sock quacking, you haven't made a case. This appeal, with a dump of links, is just more of the same. If the request really is to undelete the article as a draft to phutz with it, then say so, but it probably isn't even worth that anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely devastating that with so many links, all could not understand . Requesting for the deleted article to be revived . The link are the main page for many news sources that the subject has worked previously. These are the Indian links that are noted. I saw many Wikipedia articles using these website as references but why this pleading is not valid. Why this double standard .i really plead for this article to recovered & amendments will definitely be made with pure understanding. Do help in this matter, searched everything that I could with the hope as I mentioned earlier based on many Official Indian websites as the subject originated from India . Thank you everyone & truly sorry for this extreme burden 2001:E68:5404:BC53:D986:95E3:CF9F:C359 (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- I can't see that the closer did anything wrong here. Reyk _YO! 21:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A valid deletion, and looking at some of the sources which appear to be secondary, I don't see enough
  WP:GNG grounds (especially given all of the socking.) SportingFlyer T·C 02:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse the closer did a great job of assessing the validity of the references and the ivotes. Closer then made the proper close. Lightburst (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the socking which was only recent the article was created by another person years prior which was valid by Wikipedia . Thus, unfortunate but I do believe as the socking accounts are closed now . Guess, the closing admin made a good decision previously but I do believe if this article revived temporarily upon discussion, we could improve the article with proper Wikipedia codings 60.50.61.160 (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These links were searched and the subject had been part of these articles . References are seen which could give us the understanding the person is actually a person involved in showbiz. He seems to be involved in multiple web series from the Indian news based on these references & external links . Guess this article could be given a second thought to reconsider with more protection.

FOUR MORE SHOTS PLEASE (2019)

• https://www.bseindia.com/xml-data/corpfiling/CorpAttachment/2019/2/1b592593-0d95-4625-9ff1-b3f8b5aae492.pdf (*very important link)
• https://gulfnews.com/entertainment/tv/amazon-announces-new-indian-series-four-more-shots-1.60683383
• https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8242548/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

377ABNORMAL (2019)

• https://www.thequint.com/entertainment/hot-on-web/377-ab-normal-zee5-feature-film-depicts-desi-queers-road-to-justice
• https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/web-series/director-faruk-kabir-377-ab-normal-5635918/
• https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10118064/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

BABY STEPS (2017)

• http://www.sunday-guardian.com/masala-art/website-for-indie-shorts-offers-platform-to-new-filmmakers
• https://www.youtube.com/user/humaramovie
• https://boxofficeindia.co.in/humaramovie-goes-global/
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iare1Emeueg
• https://www.dnaindia.com/bollywood/report-soni-razdan-comes-into-her-own-2736992
• https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5491188/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

See also the articles

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saath_Nibhaana_Saathiya
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_More_Shots_Please!
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Petting_(TV_series)

16:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:D08:1838:1D70:581D:D410:F6E8:3F29 (talk)

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

)

• Closing admin "No consensus" does not equal "Keep". If you are aware of my personal history with the ARS you would know that I was always strongly opposed to their methods of manipulating AfD, and yes, I am quite aware of Andrew D.'s propensity to do random Google searches and find lots of "sources" even if they're irrelevant or trivial. The problem here is that there wasn't any consensus at all between those who didn't believe it should be kept - whether it should be deleted, merged or redirected. I would suggest revisiting the article in a few months time and re-AfDing it if it hasn't improved. You would then have a far stronger case for refuting any Keep votes based on "sources exist". Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem here is that there wasn't any consensus at all between those who didn't believe it should be kept - whether it should be deleted, merged or redirected. - I still don't think this merits a close of "no consensus". Redirection is a de facto "delete", and five people voted delete or redirect, with only a single vote for merge. I think that it's obvious the redirect voters would easily favor delete over a no consensus or having to redo the AfD, and ditto with the delete voters and redirection._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, these source dumps are typically passing mentions or unrelated topics with similar names. But other editors vote "keep per above", mistakenly trusting that the purported sources are actually relevant. And that's the important thing. I'd say this is a problem that Wikipedia should have rid itself of years ago but the community has absolutely no willpower to deal with the issue. Reyk _YO! 12:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn I don't agree with the no consensus, but I also understand how we got here and why it might be viable. This is a no consensus as an "Article for Discussion" and a not keep as an "Article for Deletion". Though there's no clear majority on what to do with the article, viewing the non-keeps as "not keeps" there's a 7–5 majority for not having this article remain, and I agree the keep !votes are not as strongly grounded in policy as some of the not-keep votes. That makes "no consensus" a valid choice when viewing the discussion as a "delete/merge/redirect/keep," but invalid as a "not keep/keep." I think the logical answer here would be to redirect the article to
  WP:ATD, I don't think deletion is an option where a merge or redirect is available, so this should be overturned to a redirect and, if someone desires, merge (not sure how much content there is to merge.) I don't think the ARS has anything to do with the no consensus here, and while I have similar criticisms as the ones raised above, I don't think that's the issue here. Compounding the problem was the lack of an explanation for the no consensus in the closing. SportingFlyer T·C 03:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

SportingFlyer AfD no consensus defaults to keep n any XfD (WP:AfD, WP:TfD, etc.), "no consensus" defaults to keep. Keeping an article preserves all options and the possibility of future discussions.. As an experienced editor and regular Ivoter at AfD you know the AfD process. Clearly not a consensus by your own vote counting - so the XfD closer does not need to explain. However if the closer closed as delete...an explanation would definitely be needed. Lightburst (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, did you even read what I wrote? Those wanting to have the article not exist in mainspace outweighed the number who wanted it kept, as did their citations of policy. SportingFlyer T·C 23:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. You described a no consensus AfD: 7 votes for 3 different outcomes, and 5 for keep. Clear no consensus. Correct XfD close. If we follow your logic-divining the intention of the voters 7-5 is not a consensus anyway. Lightburst (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should also know that vote-counting isn't how AfDs are decided - the fact more people voted not to keep the article in mainspace, combined with the low quality of the keep !votes, as described above, means a consensus not to keep the article had been found. I'm admittedly baffled by this aside. SportingFlyer T·C 02:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course I know...I was equally baffled by your misapplication of policy. You must have noticed that you are the only overturn vote - and that you are applying a formula which requires clairvoyance. I thought you were just trying to be a contrarian and so I came here thinking you would reconsider - however you are in a double down mood. You certainly have participated in enough AfDs to know how they work. Cheers Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How would you think I was being a contrarian? And which policy do you think I'm misapplying? I was the first user to cast my lot in full in this discussion, and my analysis has been agreed to almost exactly by Levivich below, albeit they advocate for a different result with a relist, which I would be fine with. SportingFlyer T·C 10:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, someone voting merge believes the topic's not notable enough for a standalone article, while still containing information which may be presented or re-used elsewhere. I know we disagree, but I'm still not certain why you're specifically choosing to attack how I've approached this. SportingFlyer T·C 02:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Any other close would require an excellent explanation. The “no consensus” close does demand an explanation, obviously now in hindsight, but it is easily defensible and well within admin discretion. Where to go from here is
  WP:RENOM. The next nomination should be much better, and this close should have been better to help the next nominator. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Further looks and discussion has convinced me that “redirect” would have been a better close. There is no compelling case to delete anything, “keep” arguments are weak as they ignore content forking, and a merge from the history is something that can be taken up from the target (I think there is no good case to merge). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist/renom. It seems to me that additional discussion with a narrowed scope would have been helpful, and relisting with a comment might have achieved that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I would have closed as keep, as I think sufficient sourcing was shown, but non consensus is an acceptable alternative. So would have been draftify. I do not see how an extended discussion is likely to improve upon a close that admits there is no consensus. Even in the absence of an explanation for the close, it seems to be an obvious way to close it. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We're all over the board here so far in a way which is rarely seen, probably shows a no consensus was proper, but this is very interesting. SportingFlyer T·C 05:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Having gone through the material in multiple articles, I see there is no viable compelling reason for deletion over a redirect (with potential merging) to Pet Sematary. This is not a Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection, and so it does not belong at AfD. It is about reversing an arguably unjustified spinout. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist for one more week per my comment above and the fact Black Kite decided not to (I am hoping it's the case of being unable per
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• To speak against a relist: The AfD discussion was so complicated, people seriously at cross points, that a pause and a bit more thought is a good idea before doing anything next. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would agreed in another situation, but 4meter4

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• relist it isn't as though discussion had fizzled out. Another week could sort out whether to merge or redirect or whatever. Reyk _YO! 12:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse I'd have endorsed a relist also (which IMO would have been an easier decision) but not any other call. BK is right IMO, this wasn't going to end in anything other than NC so cutting it off now seems best. Hobit (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Did a single member of the Article Rescue Squadron participate there other than Andrew? I don't recognize any of the names of those who said KEEP other than him. The close was a valid one. Dream Focus 20:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I am an active ARS member however I did not participate in the AfD. It is clear to me that there is no consensus - perhaps leaning keep. When there is no consensus the default is to keep, not delete. Lightburst (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No consensus is the normal state of affairs as editors commonly disagree about such matters. There doesn't seem to be a significant real-world problem and so further discussion would be unnecessary and unproductive. Andrew D. (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - This appeal is silly, because the appellant doesn't even know what the close should have been. The appellant doesn't know what the close should have been because there was no consensus, and that means that No Consensus is the best close. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist – The way I see it, all the "redirect", "merge" and "delete" !votes should be counted as "delete" !votes because, as some delete !voters pointed out, the redirect already exists (
  Gage Creed (character) essentially based on lack of GNG sources. The five keep !votes were based on there being GNG sources; a number of sources were put forward; a number were discredited; but 2pou pointed to Nightmare on Sesame Street and Frankenstein's Monster, neither of which were really specifically addressed by !voters. So it's 7-5 in favor of delete, with two potential GNG sources put forward. That is right on the line. I think consensus might have developed if the discussion were relisted with a relist comment suggesting editors focus on examining the sources that allegedly met GNG to decide if, for example, they were reliable sources, and their treatment of the character was in depth. If it was still 7-5 after a relist (or two, depending on how the conversation is going), then I'd say close it as no consensus. – Levivich 05:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No, merge is a keep not a delete. That's because the idea is to keep some of the content rather than deleting it all. And because you need to keep the edit history for attribution and reference. See
  WP:MAD for details. Andrew D. (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No, it's neither keep nor delete. A merge result at AfD means "not notable enough for a standalone article." SportingFlyer T·C 10:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't put your damn words in my mouth. My merge is not a keep. A keep vote is on the article, not just the content. My merge vote was for the article to go, but content could go in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 07:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• “Merge” is a flavour of “Keep”. Merge is contrary to “delete”, it says the information belongs, but there is a better way to organise it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not when the actual question of whether an article should exist is involved. An AfD with only Keep or Merge votes is effectively a merge discussion, and I've seen them closed as keep with a stipulation discussion on whether the content should be merged take place on the talk page. An AfD with only Delete or Merge votes effectively means the content does not deserve its own article, the exact issue being presented here. In this sense, a "merge" vote is a cousin of keep only in the sense all or some content on the page can be kept elsewhere, and a cousin of delete in the sense the information fails our guidelines for having a stand-alone article. When looking at whether an article should be kept or deleted, a merge functions as a delete. SportingFlyer T·C 10:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with all that except the last sentence. A merge !vote does not support the delete button. It may be a very weak counter to “delete” !votes, but “merge” speaks to structurism. Here, the character can be fully contained within the article on the novel, a structure issue not a notability issue. “ zero notability independent of the plot of the book” was correct, which is not the same as “zero notability”.
  On reading the AfD through again, a call of “redirect” might have been better than “no consensus”. There was not consensus to delete, the “redirect” and “delete” votes together were consistent arguments for redirect, the “merge” was quite weak with no identification of what needed merging, and the “keep” !votes failed to explain why what they pointed too wasn’t good enough covered in the novel article, they failed to count the “redirect” rough consensus. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirection to the page about the novel would be inadequate because much of the coverage is about the character in the movies and there has been more than one and each has a separate page. The role of the character in these various works is different and the actors playing the part have been different too. The character also makes cameo appearances in other works and there's coverage of those too. Andrew D. (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The closer's rationale above makes perfect sense. There was no clear overriding reason for any of the available arguments, and reasonable arguments were presented for each, so that's a textbook no-consensus. Also, the fact that someone is in the "Article Rescue Squadron" should not mean their !votes carry less weight that others. It's true that there are certain people commonly identified as "deletionists", and others who may be considered "inclusionists", but it's the arguments that count not the individuals.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist firstly I don't see the point of closing as no consensus because opinion was split between deletion, redirecting and merging, because those outcomes all come from the same premise (that we shouldn't have an article on the subject) and because no consensus results in the one thing none of them want. If that was the only situation then I'd suggest closing as Redirect instead. That would keep the redirect supporters happy, the merge supporters could merge if anyone wanted to, and the delete !voters would presumably be happier with a redirect they don't like than an article they don't like. Most of the keep !voters cited Andrew D's source list, which was pretty comprehensively rebutted, so I don't think much weight should be given to them. I would like to see some more discussion of 2pou's comment though. Hut 8.5 20:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The numerous sources which I presented were not rebutted; not even close. What the nay-sayers typically did was refuse to examine them or do their own research, just asserting their position as a matter of faith rather than basing it on the evidence. It was a classic case of poisoning the well. Andrew D. (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hardly, Rorshacma showed convincingly that many if not all of them are trivial mentions and don't represent significant coverage. You responded that they are significant coverage because "they corroborate specific facts", which isn't what
  WP:GNG asks for at all. Hut 8.5 06:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Rorschacma only looked at 4 of the 12 sources listed. They then misrepresented this sample. For example, they said "this one is nothing but a brief plot summary...". This is false as the coverage appears on multiple pages of that work and is mainly focussed on the in-jokes and cameos of the character in other works. So, that analysis was neither comprehensive nor accurate and so was quite unconvincing. The other nay-sayers were even worse as they didn't even bother to look at the sources. Blatant bias. Andrew D. (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Appearing on multiple pages in no way makes something significant coverage. That book is a guide to the works of Stephen King, it includes entries on a large number of things which appear in his books and films based on them. Gage Creed gets a very short entry, passing mentions in entries about works in which he appears, and an entry in the index. That's it. I don't think this constitutes significant coverage and it certainly isn't unambiguously significant coverage. Dumping a pile of low-quality references doesn't mean you can then say your point wasn't rebutted just because nobody bothered to go through all of them. Hut 8.5 18:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If a source has a separate titled section for a topic then it has clearly noticed it. If it lists several facts about the topic then this makes it adequate for our purposes as a source. This is quite definitely significant coverage per
  WP:SIGCOV. Rorshacma misrepresented the contents of that source in a misleading way and Hut 8.5's comments in no way validate that fake rebuttal. For a fair and independent assessment of the sources, see the comments of 2pou, "I did my own Google Scholar search, and I will vouch for at least two of the above articles....". Andrew D. (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It's a what, three-sentence, four-sentence blurb? I would say it's hardly close to
  WP:SIGCOV, but I think it just further proves a relist would be a better choice since we're at DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 13:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Closing admin I'd be happy for it to be relisted, although I suspect that the high profile a DRV brings might attract the usual suspects ... Black Kite (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse nothing to see here. A proper closing. Bravo Black Kite. Wm335td (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist There's poor accounting here on how the different types of votes are grouped; there's a majority not to keep a separate article. None of the sources presented remotely establishes that the character is independently notable of the novel and precludes covering this in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 07:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - The "No Consensus" closure was the right interpretation of the votes provided, but I think this AfD would have benefited from a relisting. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 13:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. In general I support Black Kite's idea that we don't need to have relisted something in order to have a finding of no consensus. I was having a discussion today with another editor about this very thing - a well participated deletion discussion doesn't necessarily benefit from a relist (or multiple relists). However, in this case I think a relist in hopes that those who don't think it should be kept could find a consensus on what the right outcome would be should be given a week to do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as above Halkett99 —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC) — Halkett99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Filtrator (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

My arguments against speedy deletion were not considered.

The page Filtrator was speedily deleted by a decision of Sandstein.

I dispute the deletion for the following reasons:

• Not all my arguments against deletion were considered, even not all of them answered.
• The primary reason for deletion was the topic being considered not notable. I have shown the reasons why it should be considered notable (after the page was already deleted) and how consideration of its notability was wrong.
• I have shown several reasons why G11 does not apply, each of these reasons is enough to make G11 deletion invalid.

My arguments are scattered in:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Filtrator
• User_talk:VictorPorton#October_2019
• the deleted page Talk:Filtrator

Moreover, I insist that filtrators are a subject of notable academic study because:

• My journal article was cited at least 3 times by independent sources, these sources were cited by other sources, too.
• If the article is cited, it implies that it is studied.
• It is impossible to study my article without comprehending the term filtrator.
• It logically follows that the term filtrator is in use by several notable scholars. They (as well as other notable scholars) do use this term to understand their own works, because these works rely on an article that is impossible to read without understanding what are filtrators. A reference to this term is implied in their works, as otherwise, they would not cite my article at all. (It is like as if the topic "President" were considered not notable if there were only references to "Trump" and not to "President". When one says "Trump" he implies "President". If it were previously unknown that Trump is a President then Trump being notable and publication of the fact of that Trump is a President (a direct analogy of my publication claiming that filters are filtrators) in a notable, authoritative source (what my journal article definitely is) would automatically make the topic "President" notable, even if this word were not used anywhere else. In the same way they considered filtrators not notable because this very word was not used in independent sources.)

First please undelete the page Talk:Filtrator (and Talk:Algebraic_General_Topology._Volume_1, too, as it may contain related information) temporarily to be able to restore the arguments from the deleted page.

After this, we will be able to compile the list of all my arguments against the deletion. Please do not reject my request before the full list of my arguments is placed here and thoroughly discussed. Previously it was deleted before finishing considering or even answering all my counter-arguments, please don't repeat this error now.

VictorPorton (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:NOTPROMO. I would endorse the speedy deletion, without prejudice to somebody else recreating the article. Sandstein 13:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse my deletion. Nothing has changed since the decision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filtrator in 2012 and at least the 2012 version did at least tell us a bit about the subject. The latest version has virtually no content. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Based on the arguments presented by VictorPorton here, and based upon his other deleted article (Algebraic General Topology. Volume 1 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)), I agree with the decision by RHaworth that the page was promotional. It was not as grossly promotional as the AGT vol 1 article; however, it was devoid of independent references. Based also on the article talk page denials by VictorPorton that he has a conflict of interest in his own work, I keep coming back to the conclusion that Wikipedia is better without this article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per prior AFD. Notability has still not been demonstrated and this is instead unilateral self-promotion on the part of the SPA editor. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Postdlf. Notability still hasn't been established and this is a clear (and self-admitted) attempt at self-promotion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I can't see the article to confirm but I find Sandstein's, C.Fred's, and Postdlf's votes persuasive. SportingFlyer T·C 02:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The AfD could not have been closed any other way.

The AfD includes mentions of

WP:THREE for a topic that has been deleted. Many of words above VictorPorton (talk · contribs) may seem interesting, but they are not on point for justification to re-create. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse for various reasons, including that the appeal uses the first person singular too much so that this appears to be a blatant attempt to use Wikipedia for
  G11 by User:RHaworth within the past day, and that can be appealed, but it doesn't read like that is what it is. I don't think that the appellant knows what they are requesting, except "I" and "my". The 2012 AFD was a reasonable closure. I can't read the recently speedily deleted page, but I have to assume that it was as promotional as this appeal. A Google search shows several meanings for "filtrator", which may be a type of fish, or a cleaner for a fish tank, or a cleaner for motor oil, but this appeal seems to have to do with abstract mathematics, and the Google search doesn't show anything abstract or mathematical. I concur with User:GPL93 and User:SportingFlyer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Arman Alif (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think vote is the factor in this case. He is a holder of historical record. See [22], [23], [24] (These sources are in English, more Bangla sources available). Even, he was nominated for

• The major argument for deletion was that the subject is only notable for one song. Those links don't really help with that because they are all about the song. We do have an article on the song and we could reasonably redirect this title to it. However to have an article on the singer instead either he would need to have more hits or some coverage which is more focused on him personally rather than just being about the song. Hut 8.5 20:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually the comment is if he notable for single event or not. See a song

  Dhallywood Sholoana (see have 68M views accross two channels (see [27] and [28]. Their records verified in Bangla in a national daily Amader Shomoy. But Arman Alif's song Nesha has about 95M views (In this link of Kaler Kantho, a national daily it was mentioned that Nesha was the most popular song in August'18), Beiman has about 63M views. Actually, I think problem is he got a huge coverage for a single event.But, he got coverage for other songs too.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse not the greatest discussion, but I think the close was reasonable. SportingFlyer T·C 00:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Why doesn't "BLP1E" imply "redirect"? "TOOSOON" usually implied "draftify", and if not that then "redirect back to the parent article". My !vote is that the discussion and close together were faulty. The rough consensus was "draftify" or "redirect to Oporadhi". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Draftification and redirection are always options, regardless of the outcome of the discussion. I didn't redirect because nobody argued to redirect. I didn't draftify because no one expressed interest in working on a draft. The critical question at AfD is "can this article stand on its own". A redirect could still be created, even now; that's not what the OP is complaining about. They want a "keep" outcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Good. I think you should be open to undeleting the history behind a redirect, or draftifying, if somebody asks nicely, and you are confident that they are not about recreate the article in defiance of the AfD consensus that a standalone article should not exist, not yet anyway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It is extremely rare for me to refuse a draftification request; see the history of my talk page. The only circumstances under which I would refuse are if the page contains only inappropriate content, or if the editor requesting it refuses to commit to sourcing improvements before recreation. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - As User:SportingFlyer said, not the greatest discussion, but a reasonable close. The issue is whether the close was reasonable, not whether User:WXYZ would have closed the way it was closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Good close. As well as the slight numerical superiority of the delete opinions, the keeps did not address the main reason for the delete opinions, BLP1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse.Good close , the main reason for the delete mention that, BLP1E. i have no problem if admin its redirect with Oporadhi. i request when this artical pass on notable for multiple work and
  (T) 11:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse I cannot see how the XfD closer could have made any other decision. However, a relist was a possibility. Lightburst (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]