Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 July

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

US State "Idaho" portal deleted almost a decade ago, due to inactivity. I would like to try to resurrect it. It would be great if the oldcode is lying around somewhere. Original author (and most of the project personnel) are long gone.

• Allow recreation and/or restore Not sure why Refund thought this needed our input, but sure, Idaho's a perfectly fine U.S. state--knock yourself out. Jclemens (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I advised the OP to come here is that this is essentially a request to overturn the result of a deletion discussion, which isn't within REFUND's remit (it's only for uncontroversial restorations). Hut 8.5 07:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was the nominator of the
  portal guidelines
  that had long been thought to be in effect were found never to have been properly adopted. An RFC to enact them as guidelines failed. As a result, we have no portal guidelines.

The conflict over portals ended up with an ArbCom case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals, due to conflict between two administrators. One of the administrators was sanctioned. ArbCom advised that a community discussion be conducted, to develop a portal guideline that would then be adopted by the community. The community discussion fizzled out, and we are almost back where we were two years ago, with no guidelines concerning portals. (At least, I am not aware of any new portal guidelines. If there are new guidelines, they may have been adopted without adequate community notice.)

I acknowledge that I am not neutral on the subject of portals, because I am a portal skeptic. Some of the arguments in favor of portals have seemed unconvincing to me, and have struck me as having mystical aspects. I am trying to describe the portal conflicts neutrally.

Most of the legacy portals that were the subject of contentious MFDs were of the old design, with subpages that were partial snapshots of articles, and were thus

lede section of the article often changes and the portal subpage does not change, so that a selected article reports that a person is alive, but the person has died, or that a politician is running for an office, but they are running for a different office. That design required a level of active maintenance that was seldom achieved. As a result, many portals with that design that were not being maintained were instead deleted. Portal:Idaho was one of them. Most of the portals that were deleted had very low pageview rates. Portal:Idaho had an average of 9 daily pageviews, as contrasted with the main article, Idaho

, which had an average of 2377 daily pageviews.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have another comment after a look at the WikiProject. WikiProject Idaho was marked in December 2018 as being believed to be inactive. If the appellant is trying to revive Wikipedia collaboration about articles on the state of Idaho, I would encourage the appellant to start by recruiting editors to the human team effort of the WikiProject. A portal is a time-intensive effort that should be led by a WikiProject, rather than using a portal to try to attract interest in a WikiProject (which puts the cart before the horse). As the template on the WikiProject says, editors who are trying to restart the state WikiProject should probably start their efforts by recruiting other editors from the national WikiProject.

An active WikiProject should normally be a precondition to finding volunteers for a viable portal. A portal doesn't attract volunteers; it only demands them.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In all of Robert's colossal post, I haven't been able to find a single policy-based reason to decline this.—S Marshall T/C 02:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore the only arguments put forward in the MfD were that the portal wasn't being maintained and that it didn't have many pageviews. The first reason disappears if the OP is willing to maintain it and the second one isn't much of a reason to delete anything anyway. Hut 8.5 07:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm... Yes, I am willing to maintain it (and the associated WikiProject)...sigh (Under the Rule:Step up and Do it Yourself). AND, I do fully intend on using the new(est) guidelines... just wanted the baseline... Unless someone could recommend an "Example" state? Then I could start by copying that.
  Frankly, I am conflicted about Portals, but haven't found a better "consolidation" mechanism. When learning or investigating a new topic; it becomes a pretty priceless way to go to the portal and find the "central" location for all the possible branches to that topic. Or even the latest on your favorite topic. I know from

  WP:Tennis that we get a good deal of "newcomer" traffic...I can only hope we are helping with their need/desire to understand that topic...
  Plus now I have to change THAT one with all the new transclusion code... (BTW, Nothing on the Wikipedia:Contents/Portals page screams, "Hey, here are the latest standards!!"... I'm just saying... Mjquinn_id (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I don't have any objection to restoring if someone's undertaking to actually maintain it, but portals are starting to die off and the extent to which they're used is unclear. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Portals started to die off 15 years ago, and the negligible extent to which they are used has been documented (somewhere). Pageviews contains the damming data. For every step, click, they are from the

  Main page (itself a portal), pageviews drop ~1000-fold, which indicates that loading a portal is a rare even that does not lead to loading of portals, which indicates that portals do not serve readers. For readers, they are redundant to the parent article (eg Idaho), and for editors they are redundant to a WikiProject. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment - Replying to
  Use Common Sense is the governing guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - User:Stifle writes that "portals are starting to die off and the extent to which they're being used is unclear". I agree with the first clause and respectfully disagree with the second clause. It is true that I don't know to what extent portals are being used in 2020 or 2021. I can provide statistics comparing the viewing of portals to the viewing of main articles in 2018 and 2019 for hundreds of portals. It was very rarely as much as 5% of the viewing of the lead article. Do you really want to see the reports? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess I was implying "to me" after "unclear".

  When trying to fix the portal situation in the past has got an admin desysopped, I doubt admins are queueing up to try again. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. The reason given in the MfD was "No maintenance since 2011". Now we have somebody who wants to maintain it, so that reason is no longer valid. The worst that happens is they fail to live up to their commitment and it'll get deleted again. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the original MFD, if this is an appeal (but this isn't an appeal).
• Neutral - My only reasons for opposing restoration of the portal could be seen as personalizing a war that isn't being fought. The one policy-based argument that must be mentioned, if this is a request to restore the old portal, is that the subpages are
  DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore a reasonable request. As far as I know, such portals are allowed and I see no reason to not let the editor have the old portal as a starting point. It was deleted for inactivity, this is solved by someone willing to work with it. Hobit (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (to archive). There was no valid reason for deletion, over archiving. “Not maintained” is a reason to archive, not a reason to delete. I see no good reason to revert the archiving. These discussions should not be played out in deletion forums. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Hominem Imperitum (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Person who deleted claims the article this entry is refrenced to is "a joke article" [G3: Vandalism ]. As I have explained to him, ONLY the first paragraph of the article is written ironically, the rest of the 60 page article is very serious. --Schmuel (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Article temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Since the page creator admits that this is
  reliable, secondary sources that would support the ideas on this page which also reads like an essay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I think it's our duty as Wikipedians to take this matter extremely seriously. Let's all spend lots of time on it debating the minutiae of Wikipedian procedure.—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse per S Marshall and the fact that this certainly met
  WP:CSD#A11 even if the article it's based on is "very serious". --JBL (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy endorse –
  not what we're here for. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Is the author/nom the author of the third reference as well? It doesn't look like
  WP:SELFCITE is an issue, but the relationship is not clear. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• WP:CSD#A11 "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance" A new sub-category of a logical fallacy is not important enough?--Schmuel (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• "Not what were here for"- " If you have invented something in school, the lab, your garage, or the pub" . It wasn't invented in a pub, it was invented during a 6 month period of research and writing an academic article, in the philosophy of science division in a university. Not that I think it actually matters, because people should look at ideas, science and arguments in an objective way, and not according to authoritarian/hierarchical or other superficial and subjective criteria.--Schmuel (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ''If you have invented something in school..." / "...it was invented [...] in a university". Or... you know... a school. The level at which the original research was conducted is irrelevant, if it is original research and it hasn't (
  yet) received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, its unlikely to be included here. You can believe people should look at one thing or another. But on Wikipedia we have policy, guidelines and community consensus. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The only claim that seems legit and objective for deletion is the one Liz made: "this violates no original research" I think I agree. If this is an important policy for wikipedia- I myself will endorse the deletion. Although in any case- I object to to the treatment and the attitude of the person who did the speedy deletion and called the article "a joke". I think people should be treated with more respect, not to mention empathy or COMPASSION. --Schmuel (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You are asking for a review of a deletion decision. That generally means citing a policy contradicted by the deletion action in question. That doesn't seem likely in this instance, especially given your lack of familiarity with policy. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you think is interesting, important, relevant or noteworthy. Wikipedia has guidelines about what should be included and those guidelines generally centre around
  whether or not a subject is notable. You would do well to familiarise yourself with what "notable" means in this context if you are going to assert that something is notable. Excluding original research is not just an "important policy", it goes to the core of Wikipedia's primary goal. Wikipedia does not, under any circumstances, offer itself as a platform for original research. There are myriad publications that do. There's a reason Wikipedia doesn't include a lot of content about "new trends" or "latest research" or "cutting edge innovation"; in effect, it needs to have first received attention elsewhere to have a place here. This request is unlikely to succeed (if for no other reason than its the wrong forum for your particular assertion), but you are encouraged to get involved make contributions to notable subjects. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse as a valid A11 since the (unpublished) source is written by the same author as the one who wrote this article. If we, for arguments sake, said the A11 was invalid the content is obviously so politically charged in support of conspiracy theories (implying that COVID-19 response and climate change response are based on fallacies) that it does not appear to be a good faith effort at making an encyclopedia article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse meets the defintion of A11: it indicates that the subject was made up by the author of the article and doesn't assert importance/significance. The one reference cited which mentions the subject is a self-published essay by the inventor and the text doesn't contain any assertions of significance. Being a "new" sub-category of logical fallacy is not an assertion of significance in itself, and the idea doesn't appear to be new anyway. Hut 8.5 07:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse under A11, assuming good faith. If the concept gets independent coverage into the future then it's likely to become eligible. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, my comment in the deletion log entry about the article being sourced to a "joke" source was merely to justify my inclusion of "vandalism" in the deletion rationale, but it is really of no importance, because I would have deleted the article anyway, even if the source cited had not contained deliberate nonsense. However, editors may wish to consider how seriously they would have taken a self-published supposed "research paper" containing statements such as that its author received an award for poetry in 1977, one for engineering in 1848, and one for surviving dinosaur attacks in 140,000,000 BC.
• The article is sourced only to a self-published article written by the creator of the Wikipedia article. (The other cited references are works published 23 and 44 years before the publication of Schmuel's paper introducing the term "Ad Hominem Imperitum".) There is no sign of the concept having received any coverage anywhere else at all. JBW (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, whether it's under
  WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --MuZemike 16:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse per others. Concept appears to be original research, speedy was proper. Hog Farm _Talk 16:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per
  WP:COI. Smartyllama (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse and really tempted to NAC this. Unambiguously correct and uncontroversial application of the speedy deletion policies (whichever one you prefer most), and absolutely obvious example of NOR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anker Innovations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Company is notable in its own right and is a major manufacturer of phone accessories and other gadgets. I think it was wrong to speedy delete the article considering the company's notability. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 20:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Article temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 Curiously, this company article (makes real products, I own some, they've gotten good reviews) doesn't appear to have been nominated prior to the speedy deletion. This is the sort of thing that I think needs a much higher bar than just an admin validating another's nomination, and I just don't see it reached here. Jclemens (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 - There are questions as to
  corporate notability, but the deleted and restored article is not purely promotional. I would decline it at ARC, but I wouldn't reject it or tag it for G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn G11 – doesn't seem promotional to me. I wonder if this was accidental: the article hadn't even been tagged and there's no apparent reason why G11 would apply. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 – I was very surprised when I first saw this getting deleted in my watchlist, but I guess I was too lazy to bring it up anywhere. Looking at it again, while the article isn't super well-written, I definitely don't see how it would fall under G11. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 00:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I think this is a rare slip by someone whom I regard as generally a good administrator. The article is not as neutral in tone as I think it should be, but it is nowhere near promotional enough to justify speedy deletion. JBW (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Whilst admins are absolutely allowed to speedy-delete an article on their own initiative if that article meets a CSD, and are undisputedly not required to nominate it for another to delete, I think this particular article does not meet CSD:G11. It has existed since 2017 so it is almost certain there is a neutral version to revert to in the history, and the article as was when deleted is not itself of such a low quality to merit removal. As such, overturn.
  The nominator here is however reminded that per
  WP:DELREVD it's encouraged to consider discussing deletions with the deleting admin before making a listing here; I suspect had such a request been made, the deleting admin may well have taken it into account. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and send to AfD - It's not obviously promotional enough to satisfy G11, but there are broader questions about actual notability (the sources in the undeleted version are not particularly convincing, and I can't find much better from a quick search), which suggests to me we should send this to AfD instead of letting it languish in mainspace until someone decides to do so. Actually, in the spirit of that, I could also support a
  WP:NOTBURO endorse, but I'm not positively, entirely, 100% sure this would be deleted at AfD, so I'll stop short of that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Wikipedia:Covid-19 disclaimer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The reason I want take it back: This is important to warn people about Covid-19 information in Wikipedia, by searching "Covid-19 disclaimers". Try to discuss with adminstrator, but unable to resolve (see User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights#Deletion review) [ Talk to me ] Show! Music Core and more favorite 13:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I think there is almost zero likelihood that a reader would search Wikipedia for "Covid-19 disclaimers" and no other pages linked to this redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh That's a pretty low participation discussion, but RfD tends to be that way, and the closure was reasonable, even though I would have likely opined towards keeping it. Jclemens (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse both procedurally and substantively. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse procedurally there's nothing wrong with the discussion and I don't think the OP's comment would have made any difference. Note that merely searching "Covid-19 disclaimers" in Wikipedia wouldn't have taken you there, you would have had to search for "Wikipedia:Covid-19 disclaimer" which few readers would know to do. And as pointed out in the RfD, there's no particular reason to single out COVID-19 in this regard, and similar redirects could be created for numerous other medical conditions. Hut 8.5 07:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But how would Google searching have been impacted by this redirect? I honestly don't know. Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No suggestion deletion process has been improperly followed. Very unlikely search term. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, for all the reasons given above. JBW (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

This article was deleted under G12 for a copyright violation from http://www.papercraftsquare.com/rocket-paper-craft-thor-delta-no-11-dm-19-launcher-of-telstar-1-free-download.html. Actually that site was a Wikipedia mirror that was mirroring the article Thor-Delta. This article copyied text (with an attribution on the talk page) from Thor-Delta. 100.2.238.109 (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm leaning overturn on this one. The date of publication at paperscraftsqure.com isn't clear, but the page has a 2017 copyright notice. Our 2016 version of Thor-Delta includes the text in question.[1] Based on that, I agree with the assessment that the site mirrored us. —C.Fred (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Can you overturn and also review it?

• Overturn per C.Fred's analysis, which I AGF is correct, and if that's not good enough, could someone be kind enough to temp undelete it so I can see for myself? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Could an admin see if the G12 deletion was valid? Maybe I'm missing something, but the draft (only focusing on the draft, not the Thor-Delta article) was created and deleted in 2021 while the article seems to be from 2017 at least. Also, I note that the website's DMCA/copyright page here mention nothing about freely releasing any of their content under any free licenses, and in fact the disclaimer says all rights are reserved to their respective owners. --MuZemike 03:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text of the draft was word-for-word identical to the
    Cryptic 03:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• The source site has had the same text since at least 8 December 2015. I haven't looked at our articles' histories yet. —
  Cryptic 03:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Cryptic 04:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • So, if the draft is close to the Thor-Delta article, do I then presume we probably have a valid case to merge the content into Thor-Delta? (Knowing it's out-of-scope of this DRV, but worth mentioning, and a merge wouldn't be too difficult.) I'm not seeing a purpose of having a mainspace article and a draft that differ only from a couple different things. --MuZemike 04:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, if I reviewed drafts regularly, I'd have declined as merge into Thor-Delta instead. But there's no harm in waiting to see what its author (the IP above) would have done with it. —
        Cryptic 04:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Draft temporarily undeleted — I know we don't normally temp-undelete copyright violations, but in this case, given whether it is a copyright violation or not is the exact crux of the speedy delete issue, going to
  ignore that rule and undelete for viewing in these circumstances. Daniel (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Note: 100.2.238.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) restored the content of the article (diff) before this discussion has closed. Per the template, "Please do not edit this page until the Deletion Review is completed and an administrator has removed this notice." Daniel (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm the deleting admin, and although I normally check for mirror sites, I do occasionally miss them, and I'm fine with overturning the deletion if that's the consensus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The attribution to Thor-Delta was on the talk page, so the talk page should also be temporarily restored. Also, there should not be a merge as this article appears to be an attempted split, which may be useful for users looking for a more specific list of launches.
• Overturn the alleged source site is blatantly copying Wikipedia for its descriptions, e.g. [2] is copied from Sikorsky R-4, [3] is copied from Space Shuttle Endeavour, [4] is from Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender, etc. This is clearly reverse infringement. Hut 8.5 11:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn Seems like a reasonable error. But it is now understood to be an error, so the speedy should be overturned. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Hobit's point is well taken: this is a tough area to process well, and often requires a spreadsheet and some detective work! The scrutiny applied here should not be taken by Jimfbleak as criticism of the efforts made to look into this appropriately--keeping Wikipedia legal is an appropriately higher priority than settling debates over notability. Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suhani Shah (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was speedy deleted as G4 ... but last deletion discussion was 6 years ago! Please review this deletion. New sources have been written in these 6 years. I expected , atleast , it should have gone through a regular deletion discussion . -- Parnaval (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Article temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:THREE best sources that are in the new version but not the deleted one? Sandstein 15:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • All the sources were written after the last deletion. Most of them are completely about her, although they read somewhat like an interview but all sources are independent newspapers not related to subject. All sources are equivalent but still I would say 1, 2, 3 are first among equals :) and if someone visits article take a look at other 3 also as they are also good -- Parnaval (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      I have reviewed the first three references, and they are not easily dismissed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sandstein I'd like to call to your attention that this DRV is for a G4 speedy deletion, not an XfD. It is inappropriate to demand from an editor appealing a speedy deletion multiple references, when such are not needed to demonstrate that the speedy deletion was inappropriate. Please strike your request as inappropriate for this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jclemens, I believe the request is pertinent: a G4 deletion requires that the article is not substantially different than when it was last deleted, and improved sourcing would establish a substantial difference. Sandstein 11:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fail to see how establishing notability, a far stricter criteria, is appropriate to simply overturn a G4. If a person must be 48" tall to ride a particular amusement park ride, asking people in line if they are professional basketball players is so curiously irrelevant that it prompts the question, "Why would you even ask that?" Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore the AfD was six years ago and had two participants including the nominator, it's a bit of a stretch to use it to delete recreations under G4 at all, let alone 6 years later. Also all the sources cited were published since the last AfD. Hut 8.5 16:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletion – if "not substantially identical" means anything, it means that completely rewritten articles written by completely different authors cited to completely distinct sources shouldn't be speedily deleted under G4. While she may still be non-notable, the desire for efficiency does not outweigh the need for a deliberative process here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This looks trout-worthy. So much so, that I'm guessing I'm missing something. @Materialscientist: is there something the above !votes are missing? Hobit (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn G4 misapplied to the point of being a real problem. Hobit (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn not identical at all, and there are new sources. However, this should almost certainly go to AFD once this closes. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing some searching, I think she's over the GNG bar by a fair bit, even accounting for the nature of the Indian press... Hobit (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Objectively a bad G4 by User:Materialscientist. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 - The sources are all more recent than the deletion, and that is enough to make it substantially different. I advise the author to improve the article enough for a
  Heymann result, because the current article will not survive an AFD, but it does avoid the CSD. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn G4 per our own data which shows that the article as restored was noting at all like the one previously deleted. Textbook "this isn't even remotely a G4" and I echo the other editors' call for accountability on why this was deleted as G4 in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Meh if you just look at the prose (and not the references) a G4 could be justified, while they're not identical it's just because the new version is basically a lower-quality re-statement of the old one. As we've both said, the sourcing means G4 isn't appropriate, but I wouldn't make a federal case of it. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The two articles don't even appear to agree on where the subject was born. For each inappropriate G4 brought to DRV, how many other articles were inappropriately deleted as G4? Only other admins can see, so yes, reeducating "rogue" admins (who are far more likely just overworked and taking shortcuts) needs to be part of the process of overturning a speedy deletion when the action was clearly out of policy and no IAR rationale is asserted. "I was too busy to look" is not an appropriate IAR reason, is it? While the main point is quality improvement of our deletion process,

  WP:ADMINACCT is the methodology for facilitating that improvement. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I was asked to comment as the deleting admin. Six years might have made a difference in notability, but I failed to see any. The article remains very unsubstantiated. Materialscientist (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The rule for G4 isn't "still not notable", it is sufficiently identical. When the sourcing is new after 5 years, we need a new AFD, regardless of whether the person is notable. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Asking again I guess. @Materialscientist: do you now understand why G4 doesn't apply here and do you agree to not G4 things for reasons of notability? Hobit (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Please go ahead with the process. Yes, G4 is not the right criterion in this case; A7 could apply, and a PROD or another AFD is another way to handle this article. Anyway, I strongly doubt it should stay on this wiki. Materialscientist (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"She is the only female mentalist in whole India." sure seems like a

WP:CCS to me. Regardless of its truth, someone went to the trouble to tack on references to the claim. I don't find A7 much more of an applicable criteria than G4. Speedy deletion criteria are not for things (articles, etc.) that suck, they're for things that suck so uncontrovertably bad that no one (or ALMOST no one...) who understands our policies would object in good faith. This isn't that level of deletable, in my assessment. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the sources are good enough this will survive AfD... Hobit (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green cape dress of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There's several issues here. The AfD was closed by one of the participants after just two days. They said that they had copied or merged the content elsewhere. The page was then deleted citing

• Yup: that's a catastrophic failure to follow the process, and it all needs to be reverted. Let's have a proper AfD that runs for 7 full days so we can delete this rubbish in the correct and orderly way.—S Marshall T/C 11:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, which I would do myself if I hadn't taken part in the discussion (it was closed by a non-admin). A participant in the AfD shouldn't be closing it, the discussion shouldn't have been closed prematurely, a non-admin shouldn't be closing an AfD as Delete, and deleting the article breaks attribution for Draft:Fashion of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Hut 8.5 11:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn, massive failure to follow process, closure by involved editor – though I suspect asking the closer to revise his decision might have been faster. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, even as the instigator of the AFD I agree this should be reopened and go the distance. Nthep (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Involved close by an inexperienced non admin.
  WP:SLAP the deleting admins User:Materialscientist. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - The
  G6 was the correct CSD code to use for an incorrect reason to delete. The subtypes of G6 include XFD. If we are going to allow non-admin closures of XFD's, which include a closure as Delete, the closer needs to be able to tag it for deletion. The problem is that they shouldn't have tagged it for deletion, and the deleting admin is responsible for ensuring that process is followed correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and Relist - I haven't seen the deleted article and have no opinion as to whether it should have been kept, but Relist is clearly what is called for, because the AFD should never have been closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This wasn't stated to be a
  snow closure, and should not have been a snow closure anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn as out of process, likely well meaning but still out of process. Trying to jump to likely the eventual conclusion without everyone on board has never worked out well in my memory. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Overturn. The admin who deleted it said it should be merged with Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021, but it's a bit hard to do that if we can't even look at the article history. And even if it were not notable it would still be suitable as a redirect. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that the deleting sysop has already restored this for you. User:BabbaQ, are you content for this DRV to be speedily closed?—S Marshall T/C 09:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks good to me. Close.BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand International (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm starting this DRV not to challenge the closure of the previous discussion, but to gauge whether there is consensus to allow re-creation of

• Comment: As I have mentioned at a recent related AfD, "there has been plenty of English-language coverage of the international pageant, mostly focused on the controversies it's generated (The Independent, Mic.com, Khaosod English, Stuff.co.nz). There's also coverage of the pageant's support of a Myanmar contestant's anti-coup protests (The Diplomat, Khaosod English, Eleven Myanmar)." However, they do not go into particularly in-depth detail about the pageant's operations, and I'm not sure whether they'd satisfy the GNG. Other sources like Rappler provide more detail,[5][6] but aren't written in particularly journalistic tone (I'm not familiar enough with the Philippines' media landscape to judge their reliability). --Paul_012 (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC) Updated 13:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• DRV colleagues should note the previous DRV for Miss Grand in January of this year, here. I would be minded to say that the best way to cover this material would be to create a subsection of Miss Grand for this content. After reviewing the proposed sources, I don't feel that there's enough sourceable material to justify a separate article.—S Marshall T/C 12:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think S Marshall hasit exactly right. The most likely way to keep the appropriate amount of this material is as a subsection of the main article. As I said at the previous DRV, " the goal is to find a way towards an article if an article is possible" -- that's for the main article, and for this one, it translates as , " the goal is to find a way keeping the content if it is possible" DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Unprotect the fully protected
  Miss Grand, a new AfD or merge discussion should be opened to achieve a new consensus with the latest sources.

  Cunard (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Unprotect and allow recreation entirely per Cunard's reasoning. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Miss Grand was recently deleted and salted by Dodger67 under G4. It was not tagged as {{db-g4}} by any other user at the time of the deletion. I was deleting related redirects until I stumbled upon two that triggered pop-up notices cautioning me of two fully protected pages—Miss Grand International and Miss Grand International 2020—before realizing this DRV was taking place. Not sure what is the best way to proceed with the matter. ✗plicit 13:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

London Buses route 278 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

• https://www.keybuses.com/article/real-life-safety-trials
• https://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/18092493.new-bus-services-now-running-harrow-brent/
• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2fsKBAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA278&dq=London+Buses+route+278&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=London%20Buses%20route%20278&f=false
• https://ickenhamresidents.co.uk/2017/07/08/tfl-propose-new-ickenham-heathrow-bus-service/
• https://chiswickherald.co.uk/heathrow-free-travel-zone-to-be-scrapped-next-month-p12874-338.htm

Problematic sources were also removed since nomination, which was also a reason cited for deletion by @

The closer, @

For example, my interpretation of @

Finally, the comment by @Piotrus: reads "It has been shortened ([1] vs [2]). I am not sure how this improves notability. Can you elaborate?". The article was shortened by another editor, and I replied to Piotrus' comment with "I have added several sources. I'm not sure why it has been shortened though, I need to take a closer look." Unfortunately, the discussion was closed less than two hours later, so I never had a chance to follow this up. Could the discussion have been kept open a bit longer to allow me or other editors to follow this up? Often controversial AfDs are relisted, I'm unsure why this wasn't the case here. The closure felt abrupt.

In summary, I would like to see this article reconsidered, as I do not believe the deleting admin and many of the delete voters acknowledged the significant improvement made to it between nomination and deletion. I also feel delete votes were improperly dismissed. Thanks for your consideration.

Endorse. While I haven't seen NemesisAT reply; they also forgot to ping me so. I wouldn't mind hearing more from them about what sources they added and how they meet RS/SIGCOV etc. but a relist just to continue this discussion is a hard sell; the fact remains that Sandstein is totally right that the keep votes in this nom are a joke. Nemesis' vote is a question about a notability tag, other votes are no better, including a rant about a cabal, a personal attack calling the nom a "drive by nomination", and a

WP:KEEPER. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, sorry about the lack of a ping. This is my first time creating a deletion review, the discussion below didn't ping all participants so I presumed I shouldn't either. When I'm back home I will properly ping all participants. Sorry

talk) 13:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Piotrus, so I feel the Harrow Times source and the book source qualify as

talk) 14:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Pinging other participants (am not sure what the protocol is here, sorry if I'm not doing this the correct way): @

talk) 14:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

NemesisAT Just a small note that when I mentioned the ping, I meant the comment in the AfD, the ping here worked and thus I was summoned :) But if you want someone to reply in a given AfD, it's best to ping them there. Many people don't check for comments or replies in AfD they commented in. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 08:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• I remain unconvinced the article passes
  WP:GNG in its most recent state however I feel like relisting the AfD for another week wouldn't have been unreasonable. Ajf773 (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Closer's comment: I explained in the closure why I dismissed the "keep" opinions as mostly useless. It is true that NemesisAT wrote towards the end of the discussion that they "improved" the article, but this did not sway any views, and it's easy to see why: Anybody can claim "improvement", but few editors (and certainly not I) will spend valuable volunteer time to comb through the article again and compare it with previous versions to find out what might have been improved and whether this improvement addresses the reasons for deletion. To make a persuasive case, NemesisAT would have had to explain in the AfD how they improved the article, citing the sources they now cite above, and explain why this means that the reasons for deletion are now no longer applicable. If they had done so, I'd probably have relisted the AfD. But they did not, and so I did not, and as a result I believe that the AfD was correctly closed. Sandstein 09:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There are two limbs to Sandstein's closing statement. First, he says that the "keep" opinions fail to address the suggested reason for deletion, which is a lack of notability. I would agree that when the challenge is about notability, the response can only be to show independent sources that meet WP:RS; and the !votes in the debate don't add much value in the way of sourcing. Second, he discounts some !votes which amount to direct attacks on the nominator.
  I wholeheartedly agree with Sandstein on the second point. It's not OK to charge around AfD punching nominators on the nose, and I view the behaviour in that debate as totally outside Wikipedia's conduct standards. Andrew Dingley and AlgaeGraphix's contributions both demonstrate their need for some support and direction from a member of our administrative corps. The fact that someone nominates an article for deletion doesn't justify being breathtakingly rude to them.
  I don't fully agree with Sandstein on his first point. NemesisAT did say he'd introduced additional sources, and because this took place late in the debate, there was no attempt to analyze them. This is understandably difficult for a closer. The current fashion for constantly relisting debates isn't ideal: AfD is costly in volunteer time, and volunteer time is Wikipedia's only limited resource, so closable discussions should be closed where possible. But in this case I differ from Sandstein in that I feel the new sources were added in good faith, and to me they appear sufficiently plausible to justify a relist for the purpose of analyzing them.—S Marshall T/C 09:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that someone nominates an article for deletion doesn't justify being breathtakingly rude to them.- ideally yes, but historically prepending a personal attack with the word "keep" has usually been an exemption to the civility rules that apply to the rest of us. I'm glad to see this seems to be slowly changing. Reyk _YO! 10:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It is inappropriate to make a personal attack as part of a keep !vote, but doing so does not and should not invalidate the !keep vote. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to be clear, IMO the two keep votes called out for containing personal attacks didn't contain anything but personal attacks. Reyk _YO! 15:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- On the keep side we had an attack on the nominator that didn't discuss the article, another attack on the nominator that omitted discussing the article in favour of some unfunny vehicle puns, an empty KEEPPER, and one person who actually seemed to be trying to improve the article. Unfortunately the other participants were unconvinced that even these improvements demonstrated the notability necessary to keep the article. It's always a balance between encouraging improvements even late in an AfD, and just drip-feeding marginal sources just to invalidate previous delete !votes (this one I think was clearly the former) but I think the bar for chucking out !votes should be pretty high. Reyk _YO! 10:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, I understand it could have come across that way but I certainly wasn't adding sources just to try and invalidate existing delete votes. I restored this article after it was redirected with no discussion a while ago, but only added a couple sources. I should have put in more effort at that point to improve the article. I probably should have been quicker to improve the article when the deletion nomination was filed, but also didn't. I was however expecting the discussion to remain open for longer, and as already mentioned above, I had hoped the improved article would have been better considered. To me, it feels like a shame to throw out an encyclopedic article based on the conduct of a few voters over one week. Best wishes

  talk) 14:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I understand that. Unfortunately I've seen people drop in a very bad source right at the last minute and saying (more or less verbatim), "I added a source. All the previous delete !votes are invalidated" as a cynical tactical maneuver. I had tried to be clear that that's not what I think you were doing. Reyk _YO! 15:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for clarifying. I'm just passionate about public transport and feel there is a place on Wikipedia for bus routes. I'm saddened by others who cite

  talk) 15:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Reyk: Even if someone does add a source cynically, the discussion should not be closed before other editors have had a chance to see whether the added material does or does not change anything. That might mean relisting, it might just mean holding off on closing. In this case there was an explicit comment that something needed more investigation to determine whether it did or did have an impact but the discussion was closed before that could happen. If Sandstein believed that change to the article did not address the rationale for deletion then they should have participated in the discussion to say so rather than supervote. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Sandstein's
  WP:DGFA's guidance to "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants." This seems to be one-way traffic. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comments:
  • • I concur with
      civility
      in AFD discussions.
    • If the Keep statements that were personal attacks (or impersonal attacks) are discounted, there is a consensus (not only a rough consensus) for deletion.
    • To address
      run-of-the-mill
      .
    • To further address
      User:NemesisAT
      ' question, the AFD participants and the closer have already discussed notability and concluded that the bus route is not notable, and asking about notability at this point is relitigation.
    • When NemesisAT has
      significant coverage
      rather than passing mentions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILL

without deleting all other bus routes on Wikipedia.

I don't believe the article was

talk) 15:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Relist. It is not appropriate to arbitrarily dismiss votes from one side of an argument just because they allegedly violate NPA (if an editor is making personal attacks then that needs to be dealt with independently, the manner in which an opinion is expressed does not invalidate that opinion), nor is it appropriate to close a discussion when participants have not had a chance to review changes made during the discussion. While I'm not convinced the article in its final state did demonstrate that it met the GNG that is a matter for AfD not DRV and I've not reviewed whether any of the information removed by Toviemaix would make a difference to that. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  "If", Thryduulf? Is it seriously your intention to imply that that debate wasn't full of direct attacks on the nominator? I see that one of the attackers is now doubling down by attacking the AfD closer at DRV. I invite you to consider putting on your sysop hat and dealing with the matter.—S Marshall T/C 15:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  My "if" was referring to the general case not just this specific discussion. As someone involved in the AfD and DRV it would not be appropriate for me to be acting as a sysop here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This DRV is appealing a close on the grounds of new sources, but nothing resembling a source analysis was given either in the AfD or in this DRV request. @
  WP:SIGCOV? — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Sure thing:

  • The Book of 365: All the Numbers, None of the Maths which covers the former route using number 278 in detail
  • Ickenham Residents Association post discussing the introduction of the route due to the planned Crossrail line, not a major publication but demonstrates a local angle
  • Hillingdon Times covers the introduction of the new route and how it has replaced another route, the 140, as well as the new direct link between Ruislip and Heathrow.

  I believe the wide range of coverage from various sources demonstrates notability for this route number. Thanks

  talk) 15:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse - There is nothing wrong with Sandstein's rationale. In fact, it's nice to see an AfD close who goes beyond simply counting !votes, and actually considers policy based opinions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There wasn't much in the way of policy based opinions on either side. One delete voter cited

  talk) 15:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Overturn unless the long-distance telepathy implied by the closer's statement "this did not sway any views" can be substantiated. That is, just because someone doesn't come back and say "Nope, read those, they all suck, still not notable" or "Wow, what great sourcing... I agree it should be kept" there is no necessary inference that the votes have not changed. While Reyk's point about adding a single lousy reference as a "cynical tactical maneuver" is well taken, the solution to that is to treat a pattern of such AfD participation as a user conduct issue, not to imagine that a closer can extrapolate that added sources are inadequate simply because no one commented upon them. Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the Keep arguments in that discussion largely consisted of attacks on the motivations and/or actions of the other side. It was reasonable for the closer to downweight those comments - apart from anything else they simply don't constitute valid arguments. While I wouldn't strongly object to a relist, I don't think the sources mentioned really make it worth doing so. The best looking one (the book) was brought up in the AfD and wasn't felt to be very convincing, and passing mentions in local newspapers and the like aren't going to demonstrate notability. Hut 8.5 18:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn reasonable close and relist - Given the absence of useful source analysis, Sandstein's close was a reasonable reading of the AfD discussion as it stood. Nonetheless, the sources NemesisAT are of a quality that normally deserve attention in an AfD, so relisting is appropriate. S Marshall is quite right to be concerned about the behaviour of the participants he named in the AfD: I've bookmarked the AfD, and if I see any further harassment, I'll raise the matter on the AN/I dramaboard. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Although my Keep vote was not couched in the most politic of terms, there are a number of editors who routinely advocate for the deletion of all bus-transport-related articles. Sandstein may not not be aware of the history and background of previous bus AFDs, but that in no way excuses discounting the opinions of one side and not critically assessing those on the other. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reading of how discussions are closed is exactly the opposite of yours, then. I think that under our discussion-closing norms, Sandstein was required to discount your opinion. We expect sysops to disregard !votes that aren't policy-compliant; WP:NPA is policy; therefore !votes that contain personal attacks receive zero weight in the close. QED. Sandstein's hatnote says I must discount those !votes, indicating that he feels he has no discretion in the matter at all, and I don't think he's wrong.—S Marshall T/C 22:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In fairness I don't think AlgaeGraphix vote was a personal attack, rather a response to the "not useful" comment above.

    talk) 22:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    • It consisted of "keep" followed by unfounded and disparaging speculation about the nominator's motivations.—S Marshall T/C 09:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist for a better discussion. (I point out we have been very accommodating to articles of this nature with no better sourcing, and if we're goin to change standard practice it should take more than an isolated AfD.) DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to allow for discussion of NemesisAT's newly added sources and rewrite of the article. Cunard (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• relist on the basis there are some reasonable sources to discuss. That said, I personally don't think any of the new sources listed above are very helpful for meeting WP:N. So we'll likely be back to a redirect in a week or so. Hobit (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Most if not all of the keep votes were indeed discountable for failing to address the reasons for the nomination. Nevertheless, per
  WP:IAR, following the rules strictly should not prevent us from improving the encyclopedia – and the improvements to the article during the nomination period don't deserve dismissal out of hand. As such, Endorse but relist. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Darnitsa (pharmaceutical company) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I tried to fix the problems of the previous page, among which were called native advertising, PR, lack of independent sources, there were doubts about notability. Used sources include independent secondary scientific publications, as well as two third-party encyclopedic sources (see on References: №13 №15) that show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

The proposed text of the new version of the page you can see in my sandbox.

According the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require, I disclose my employer: Pharmaceutical company “Darnitsa”. Kirotsi (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I closed the AfD. Kirotsi thank you for the ping, and the COI disclosure. I looked at the sandbox draft briefly. It is substantially different from the version that was deleted, with more references. I can't see any reason for the draft not to be moved into mainspace, and don't see that DRV needs be involved. I think it's still quite promotional in style, and I'm not sure if would survive a second AfD, but that's not DRV's problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be moved to mainspace on the deleting sysop's say-so.—S Marshall T/C 15:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (to draftify). I read the AfD consensus to be “draftify”. Enough time has passed for the draftified and improved article to be boldly mainspaced if an editor in good standing believes the reasons for deletion are overcome. Alternatively, submit through AfC.

If the article had been draftified, this would be simpler. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kirotsi has a COI, and so AfC should be used. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the AfD reclosed as “draftify”, it would make it easier for an AfC reviewer to accept and mainspace it. If there is disagreement, AfD2 would be a good place to discuss it. As it stands now, a single non-COI editor is needed to mainspace the sandbox. Personally, I am unenthusiastic to engage with a foreign language

WP:CORP topic, it usually involves very careful reading for judging independent editors of sources. However, the article is much better that what appears to have been discussed at AfD. Is there a native language Wikipedia article for it? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

SmokeyJoe, there is an old version in the native Ukrainian language that needs to be corrected. There is a page in Russian that I have corrected and expanded. Based on that page, I have prepared the English version. --Kirotsi (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kirotsi, thanks, that's good. I don't know if many agree with me, but in judging the notability of a foreign language topic, I take notice of the quality of the native language Wikipedia article. When reviewing I always look for it. It is helpful to link to that foreign language Wikipedia article. For articles, these links are found in the "In other languages" box, in a frame outside of the article. If it is not there, and you don't know how to add it (I don't) or it is a draft, then add the link as an external link.

If you speak the native language, I strongly urge you to improve the native language article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify Its not exactly promotional , but with an emphasis on production figures it's not encyclopedic either. Draft space was meant for this. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all editors for taking the time to study this request. In EnWiki, this is my first experience of recovering previously deleted pages. And I had doubts about the most correct procedure. Now I understand that it was necessary to boldly work in the draft space. Maybe I should wait until this thread is closed before submitting a page draft for review at AfC? --Kirotsi (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kirotsi, if it was deleted, you are usually welcome to work on it either in your userspace, or in draftspace. To have the deleted article userfied or draftified, ask for userfication or draftification at

WP:ANRFC and request closure. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

)

Oveturn G4 deletion and allow for a new AFD if desired. This has actually be deleted via G4 six times since 2011. However, the content from this most recent version is not substantially identical to the version deleted at AFD. No opinion on the merits of this article, but I don't think its similar enough to the AFD'd version for G4 to be applicable. Hog Farm _Talk 05:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who are all these people who rush straight to deletion review instead of first consulting the deleting administrator? I am perfectly happy ti restore the article and let the editor who nominated it for speedy deletion take it to a deletion discussion if they wish to, since the deletion has been questioned. JBW (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -
  DRV to be as welcoming as possible. Is that true, or is that just something that we say? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Robert McClenon: Thank you for your comment. You are, of course, perfectly right to point out that I should have expressed myself in a more friendly way. Whether it is required or not, I think common sense says that if you disagree with something someone has done your first step should be to consult them about your concerns, with seeking third party support for overturning their action kept in reserve to be used only if bilateral agreement can't be reached. As for my manner suggesting that consulting me would not have been helpful, you are welcome to read through my talk page archives. Of course I am not an impartial observer, and you may come to a different conclusion, but my impression is that I am fairly friendly to editors who consult me in a constructive spirit. However, that doesn't detract from the fact that this time my approach was not good. Thank you for drawing my attention to that. JBW (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Close - Article has been restored and is at AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page has now complete filmography, short biography with as much information as I was able to find. There is over ten reliable sources. Dinnydee (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll note that the AfD on this was 8 1/3 years ago, which is over 1/4th of this actress' life. I don't think you need permission to write a better article than that which was deleted in 2013. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure why we're here. The article has already been recreated, and it hasn't been nominated for deletion. There's no need to secure the DRV imprimatur: you already have want you want. I'd recommend that this be speedily closed, since we aren't being asked to do anything. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamla Nath Sharma (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I could not participate to reply to the comments of reviewers, as I was unwell. The person of the article is a versatile hydropower expert, former Asstt Professor, writer on ancient Indian scriptures, writer in Hindi literature who has published books, etc. Aaditya.Bahuguna (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For this to be considered, you're going to have to provide evidence that this person meets our
  Cryptic 16:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Ordinarily I might be unsympathetic, considering the fact that the AfD was open for over three weeks. But two of the four participants were sockpuppets, so their !votes must be given zero weight. That leaves only two valid delete !votes, which would usually have resulted in
  soft deletion. Under these unusual circumstances, the most prudent thing to do would probably be to relist. This enables the petitioner to make his case, but it also allows for the formation of a valid consensus untainted by sockpuppetry. (The only other option would be to overturn to soft delete, REFUND the article, and start a new AfD, which would be needlessly bureaucratic.) While a third relist is necessarily rare, this is the sort of situation under which it might be appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I concur with the recommendation by User:Extraordinary Writ -
• Relist to allow the originator to make their case that they were unable to provide at the time of the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While thanking the reviewers/editors for considering the article on Kamla Nath Sharma for reversal of deletion/relisting, I must confess that I am unaware of the technicalities of various words/sections mentioned in the discussion. However, I do believe that now the reviewers are unbiasedly reconsidering the very first proposal for deletion of the article by someone who turned out to be a sockpuppet. In my view the article should not have been proposed for deletion in the first place in view of the accomplishments of the 75 years old personality in vastly different technical and literary fields, demonstrated by evidence of publications, mementoes (which were wrongly/degradingly equated to prize of $250, or reward, by someone, of course without meaning any offense), fellowships awarded, contribution to international dialogues as a member/representative of consortia of various water-related international organizations, etc. The gentleman writes on subjects of today's relevance like water, environment, ecology etc. as these were treated in the world's most ancient Indian Sanskrit scriptures. Two of his articles on these subjects were invited by Springer's world Encyclopaedia. He has lectured on them in some countries also. He is also a known name in India as a satire writer and story writer in Hindi language and has published a few books on them. He has also been honoured by an Indian State - Rajasthan's Literary Academy in 2018-19 for one of his satire collections. He has co-authored a book on Water Power Engineering also, which is said to be a reference book in many universities/countries. Examples of such personalities who write in two languages and on different fields authoritatively are few in India. Many of the references of about 30 years or more (in printed form) may not have been possible to collect, however, best efforts were made to include as many available references as possible in the article. In the light of this small clarification in support of reinstating the article, the editors/reviewers may please take a favourable decision and advise further steps. Best regards. Aaditya.Bahuguna (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. Since the ed. recognises that they are not familiar with WP practice, there will be a much better chance of an article if there's some substantial editing, and Draft is the place for it. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to allow Aaditya.Bahuguna to present reliable sources about the subject at a new AfD not tainted by sockpuppetry. I am also fine with draftifying but allowing Aaditya.Bahuguna to immediately move the article back to mainspace without having to go through Wikipedia:Articles for creation once Aaditya.Bahuguna has completed making improvements to the draft.

  Cunard (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist, because he was sick, and because we should be kind. Aaditya.Bahuguna (talk · contribs), you’ve been here a long time, but have few edits. Do you edit logged out, or with another account? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG, Cunard, SmokeyJoe for your consideration. Yes, I know I have not been able to contribute substantially all this time, but I hope I would be able to do so now. For the article Kamla Nath Sharma, if I can be informed which particular references were not deemed 'reliable' and which part especially needs revision. From my side, I had prepared text mostly based on references available and published work. However, with your suggestions/guidance, I hope the article will be acceptable. Please take steps for relisting and provide advice for improving the article, as I realise I am not fully conversant with all technicalities of WP. Regards. Aaditya.Bahuguna (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

The snowball clause was not applied correctly here. The section "A cautionary note" reads:

The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are not votes; it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives, or changing the weight of different views, if closed early. Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view. It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to be sure that it really will be a snowball and as a courtesy to be sure that no significant input will be excluded if closed very soon. Cases like this are more about judgment than rules, however.

— Wikipedians, A cautionary note, Wikipedia:Snowball clause

I do not think the snowball clause applied here. The vast majority of comments were votes and did not make arguments of their own. A quick closing did not allow for other points to be raised. Since the snowball test says "If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause," I'm going to raise an objection to A.WagnerC's point with a source review table. (Note: Infosecurity Magazine's server is down. I can't find anything about them online sans their own company profiles.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
Registrar No.1	No information about ties to Protonmail, so assuming yes.	From a seemingly reliable publication.	Incredibly short article about a DDOS attack on the software, not the actual software or company itself. Trivial.	✘ No
Registrar No.2	See above.	Article makes some point of view comments in the subtitle.	Yet again a short article. It gives a basic overview of the service and some information about its new product line. Is also mostly just restatements of company policy and statements.	✘ No
Reuters	Respected, independent news source.	Respected, independent news source.	Mostly about Russian internet restrictions. The only thing about the service itself was a half-sentence summary at the start of the article.	✘ No
Vice	Respected, independent news source.	Respected, independent news source.	~ Semi-short article that is partially devoted to a product launch, but actually discusses the company and its userbase.	~ Partial
Bit Tech	~ Heavily relies on the service's information. Not sure of Bit Tech's reliability.	? Not sure of Bit Tech's reliability. It seems to be from one of their news writers?	One paragraph discussing the company. It's mostly about Paypal freezing their account.	✘ No
Gizmodo	Independent, respected newspaper.	Independent, respected newspaper.	Two paragraphs not about a new UI update, which is specifically listed as an example of trivial coverage.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Ardenter did not follow deletion review process correctly since they did not ask me to reevaluate the close. Other than Ardenter, there was unanimous agreement that this topic meets WP:N, so a snow close was indeed appropriate. There's a ton of reliable sources easily found with a Google News search discussing the company/product. (t · c) buidhe 05:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  A snow close is meant to be for when there is no reasonable argument against the result or the consensus is unanimous. However, most of the comments in the deletion discussion were votes or pointing to a policy, not reasons for keeping. I only remember three that weren't votes, so I don't see SNOW as applicable here. Besides that a lot of those are from unreliable sources or are insignificant, this discussion is not about whether to close the article. I gave a source amendment table for the snowball test. Ardenter (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse there was clearly no chance of this closing any other way. Re-opening would be a violation of
  WP:SNOW. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse the SNOW close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the SNOW close, and might I suggest that the 7th consecutive editor to come to the same conclusion just SNOW close this DRV instead of piling on? 11-0 after 3 days is textbook SNOW, textbook NAC, and DRV'ing it borders on
  WP:DEADHORSE. Jclemens (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse 3 more to go? Frankly, I'm not a huge fan of snow-closing a discussion that's more than halfway through the usual 7-day period, but the outcome wasn't just "likely" or whatnot, it was inevitable, and the consensus was indeed unanimous (with above-average participation to boot) which means the
  restart the AfD in six months if you believe you have a good case. Relisting it right now would be absolutely pointless: the snowball has simply gotten too large – exercise common sense and get out of its way. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse the snow close. The consensus was not reached based on these sources alone. during the period in which the discussion remained open, no one presented arguments for deletion. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with the conclusions in the table, as they are not trivial coverages. GIZMODO: 2 paragraphs dedicated to the new feature is rather significant coverage. there is no minimum number of paragraphs to state whether or not coverage is significant. THE REGISTER: is an event involving protomail. so it's not just significant coverage about Russia. VICE: the article is also about protomail. Finally, worth invoked

WP:HEY. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse, and the point to this appeal is what??? Does the appellant really think that if the AFD were reopened, there is a non-trivial likelihood that other editors would show up to argue Delete? Can we provide the appellant with an irradiated
  salmonid? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse per all above. This is a textbook case for a SNOW close; relisting would be unhelpful and
  WP:IAR, and the idea that ignoring the rules broke the rules about ignoring the rules strikes me as improbable, to say the least. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. There is no reasonable prospect that this article would be deleted no matter how long the AfD ran, and no good argument that it should be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I could imagine a good nomination statement might have worked here. Walking through what seem to be the best sources and explaining why they weren't good. But that didn't happen and no good reasons for deletion followed in any discussion or !vote. And it's not like it was closed in 12 hours. Endorse. Hobit (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Air Jet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Page deleted unjustified, article not promotional. The article concerns an actual airline that has received an Air Operator's Certificate in Indonesia. The entry explains the foundation of the airline as well as its origins. The deleted article also features the fleet information of the airline that with data summarised from an independent and verified database. The deletion of the page only delays the eventual recreation of the page as it concerns an actual publicly accessibly entity. I have also cited numerous journalistic news sources that have significant reputation in the country. There were very few if any statements which may point to the deleted article being considered promotional. The page summarises the numerous information about the establishment and subsequent launch of the airline available freely for the public to see on various databases and news reports. Raymondeuro (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Creation of Draft - When an appellant says that an article was not promotional, there are two possible reasons. First, the article was not promotional. Second, the article was promotional, but the author has a bias and doesn't see the promotional nature. Let a reviewer review. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Surely was fixable. If not, it is worth a decision to explain promotion, sources, and
  WP:TNT. Looks notable to me. Eg https://simpleflying.com/super-air-jet/. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This doesn't look like a G11 at all to me. I haven't looked at the sources and I don't know that it would survive an afd - it would at best be at the very bottom threshold of past practice for airlines, with only three planes and only just having begun operations - but it's written neutrally. Overturn. —
  Cryptic 22:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 19:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - there are a couple of word choices that are probably wrong (e.g., "refuted" rather than "denied") but a couple of word choice swaps don't constitute a "fundamental rewrite" WilyD 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I reviewed the article and found it neutrally written. I do not consider it promotional at all.
  Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion does not apply. Cunard (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Draftify I agree with Cunard that this is not conceivably a G11, and I tend to use G11 more liberally than many admins if something seems hopeless. It might have a better chance at afd if it were edited at draft. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Ball (composer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Ten years ago the argument against listing is that Jeff is not on par in notoriety with composers such as Jeremy Soule. At this point, based on all the games and other media Ball has worked on ad composer, arranger, or performer, his notoriety is comparable to Danny Baranowsky or Rich Vreeland, both of whom have wiki articles.

I received word from wiki user "Warky" that he'd attempted to relist the page with updated info, only to have it pulled down within 24 hours by a mod who accused him of acting as a writer hired by Ball. This is disingenuous at best, conspiratorial gatekeeping nonsense at worst. Warky and myself are enthusiasts. I have been covering game music for decades and I am certain Ball is as noteworthy and accomplished as so many other composers who have pages. This isn't advocacy for one person though, this is asking for fairness and consistency from the wiki moderators, and recognition that a person who was not notable a decade ago may well become more notable over time. Tonelico (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No conspiracy here; we just don't like ads - essentially none of the prose in the deleted page belongs in a neutral encyclopedia article. (Representative sample: "Jeff Ball is an award-winning Los Angeles based music professional who brings many years of music creation to every project. He is a skilled pianist, violinist, and violist, with many years of formal music education.") You're welcome to write an article that isn't indistinguishable from what a writer hired by Ball would write. Endorse as a G11 (like it was tagged); the G4 would be a heck of a stretch, even if the AFD wasn't ten years old. —
  Cryptic 01:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Construe as a G11 and endorse – I can't see the deleted article, but judging from the excerpt above it appears to be identical to this, which is textbook promotionalism. While it's conceivable that Ball is now notable, that's no justification for a non-neutral article that was apparently copied from Fandom. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not identical; about a third of the prose was removed, and while it was the worst third, the remainder is still G11able. —
    Cryptic 16:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Per the afd
  WP:DRAFT With a historical AfD and the Promotional (G11) look of the last attempt it should not be in main space until it is submitted for review and promoted. Jeepday (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I think that would have been a reasonable G11. There wasn't much prose in the article (it was mostly a massive discography) but what was there was extremely promotional. I don't think it's a valid G4 though. Using G4 to enforce a ten year old AfD with three participants would be a stretch in any case but the article didn't bear much resemblance to the AfDed version. I doubt it would survive a new AfD now though as there wasn't much evidence that the subject meets the
  GNG, the sources cited were mostly discographies and the like (apart from this interview). I suggest restoring it to draft space for improvement if the OP wants to work on it. Hut 8.5 18:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse if an appeal of the old AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Creation of Draft if a request to create a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the ten year old AfD. Can some fresh eyes fix WP:DRVPURPOSE? See
  WT:DRV. The nominator needs to be shown the advice. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I think (?) this was supposed to be an appeal of the speedy deletion, not the AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Send to AfD. If a G4 is worth a discussion, just hold the discussion at AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a G11, if the question regards the speedy deletion, as the article was clearly promotional and was tagged for G11 prior to deletion. (I believe the deleting admin inadvertently used G4 a second time rather than G11, but regardless a G11 deletion would have been warranted). No prejudice against creating a non-promotional article; if someone feels that's not notable that can be discussed at a new AfD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorists (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request:_create_Category:Terrorists_as_redirect_to_Category:People_convicted_on_terrorism_charges, I believe this should be recreated as a (protected) redirect to Category:People convicted on terrorism charges. It really shouldn't be controversial, as the point is just to have a naviagtional aid - when someone types C:Terrorist our software shoud autocorrect them to the more neutral "People convicted on terrorism charges" rather than having them give up or spend time figuring out we use this long wording. I asked for this to be done at AN but it was deferred to DR as a "content matter"... I do wonder if DR will demure and defer this to some other forum, or back to AN. This is a really simple technical request, folks. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion There may be a misunderstanding because a category can never be a redirect in the normal sense—see
  WP:R#CATEGORY. Instead, if this page is restored, it would contain {{Category redirect|Category:People convicted on terrorism charges}} which would display "This category should be empty"—see {{Category redirect}}. Category:Terrorists has been deleted since 2009 and the April 2009 CfD didn't endorse a redirect. If Category:Terrorists exists, as stated in the review request, people could drop [[Category:Terrorists]] on any BLP and it would not stand out as an obvious red-link problem. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Well, I am fine with a "category redirect". My point is that in Hotcat, if I type in Category:Terrorist, it should automatically autocorrect it to Category:People convicted on terrorism charges. It is unfortunate that if one does so outside HotCat, a bot is required to fix this, but AFAIK it runs every few hours, and frankly, a few hours of shorthand in a category doesn't strike me like a serious BLP issue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Judging from a quick skim of c:Help:Gadget-HotCat#Shortcuts a HotCat user can define a name (such as "ter") to be a shortcut for a category (such as "Category:People convicted on terrorism charges"). Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the closure in 2009, if this is an appeal of the closure, but it does not appear to be an appeal. This is not the sort of content matter that can be dealt with at
  Village Pump miscellaneous might be able to address the question of redirecting a category, if that is the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The OP wants to recreate the page with different content. This can't be dealt with as a normal content matter because the title is salted. Any recreation of the page would be an admin action, and a disputed one given that at least one admin is opposed to it, so we should have a discussion about it somewhere, and DRV is the best venue for that. DRV is in scope "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page", which is what the OP wants. Hut 8.5 07:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't find the significant new information? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OP certainly has a new argument. Hut 8.5 18:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And just to clarify, I am not recommending recreation the page as it was (although I am not necessarily opposed to it, per SmokeyJoe comment below, which is a valid argument in itself). But for now, all I am trying to do is to get this redirected to the non-controversial category that seems to have replaced it. Why is a redirect proving controversial? And in fact, nobody seems to be even saying it is, I am just being told to jump the hoops (wrong forum, try forum B, no, wrong forum,. try forum, C...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Did you see my comments above? The problem is that there is no such thing as a category redirect. Instead, Category:Terrorists would have a template on it saying that there should be no articles in the category, and another category should be used instead. Apparently that would work for people using HotCat because it would insert the correct category but lots of category edits are not made with HotCat. Does anyone know if a category has ever been created to act effectively as a shortcut? Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

> Does anyone know if a category has ever been created to act effectively as a shortcut?

Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories. I thought this was a category redirect? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I know very little about categories but, for example,

Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories but is not in Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages. That's complicated by the fact that the user page is actually a transclusion from another page. For another test, I previewed an edit of my user page where I replaced the content with [[Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories]]. The preview showed the page was in that category, not in the category which is the target of the redirect. So, what I mean is that category redirects don't work as categories. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:COMMONAME they should not be forced to spend their time trying to figure out what weird category we use instead - the software should "take" their input and correct it to the category name chosen by the community). HotCat does it instantly, the bot takes care of the remaining versions, life is easier for editors who don't know the preferred name. Win-win. Where's the problem? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Send to CfD. Has it been discussed at CfD in recent years at all? Categorisation norms are esoteric, and interested editors will be found there. If the CfD is closed wrong, then come back here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  At CfD, I would say: Categories should follow the parent articles. If there is controversy, then even more so.

  Terrorists is a redirect to Terrorism. Therefore, Category:Terrorists, if it exists, should be a redirect to Category:Terrorism

  .

  The rule I reference above is old and strong and constant, I believe. And it has an excellent effect, arguments and disputes on content are sent to mainspace articles, and their talk pages, and there the deciding evidence is sources. In the category system, there are no sources, and so arguments in category space could become proxy battles disconnected from source references. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that is if there is any case for

  Terrorist. That article is not very advanced, and was subject to vandalism, in 2006, when it was redirected. There is not even a good section at Terrorism for "Terrorist", despite there being a large amount of content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I'd vote to overturn (this was a supervote IMO), but I don't think challenging the closure was the intention here as the OP doesn't want the category restored but merely believes that its page title would be a good redirect and is looking for a way to have it created in a way that's completely unrelated to any previous discussions/deletions. Therefore, I'd recommend this DRV be procedurally closed as wrong venue and the discussion moved to either
  WP:CfD, preferably the former since the question to answer is whether Category:Terrorists would make a viable redirect (not a category, even though it would be a category from a purely technical standpoint) and discussions of that nature are generally handled at RfD regardless of the (potential) redirect's namespace. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I'd be fine discussing this at RfC (for redirect) and CfD (for recreation per SJ's arguments), alas, I fear this will be more 'wrong forum, try another one' deference :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As many terrorists are never convicted (especially those who died during their terrorist activities), this would mean redirecting a larger group (all terrorists) to a smaller group (all those convicted), which should not be done. Add to this the argument why the short-lived redirect was deleted at AN (namely, to prevent or reduce the constant addition of this category to BLPs), and I don't think this redirect should be created (no matter at what venue it is discussed).
  Fram (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I would agree with Fram. Recreating this as a redirect as suggested—when large numbers who engage in "terrorist" activities are not ever convicted of terrorism, for example they are killed during fighting or by airstrikes—to problematic additions (including BLPs) who may be considered terrorists by some but were not ever convicted of terrorism. Therefore, it's likely to cause miscategorization. (t · c) buidhe 08:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isak Hansen-Aarøen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

You'd better also invite

WP:NFOOTY). You do agree that Hansen-Aarøen does not pass NFOOTY, but claim that he passes GNG. I disagree, because his GNG entirely hinges on NFOOTY, and all references on that merely echo a few routine facts from his junior career, with nothing coming out at the senior level yet. Materialscientist (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:BEFORE, or by any of the !voters. Alvaldi (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

consensus. See the discussions I cited, there is a consensus that young players who fail NFOOTY are notable through mentions in major sources (reliable websites, newspapers etc.). Check for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pipi (footballer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luqman Hakim Shamsudin, this case is the same as the precedents cited above. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

First, focus on this article, and not on editors or on other articles. Second, don't twist the notability - of course, anyone can have additional notability to their professional achievements (a mediocre footballer can be a hot model, a notable actor, etc., etc.), but this is not the case - all his "general notability" is merely an echo of his few junior football facts - multiple minor sources repeating the same fact, there are no additional notability facts in them. Third, the number of refs in deleted article does not matter when the notability has not changed. Fourth, much of refs are either from Norwegian sources or their echoes, i.e., he is notable for Norwegian wiki, but not for this wiki. Materialscientist (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BIAS. Sources from major Norwegian publications are more than enough to establish notability. His age does not matter regarding his notability, his lack of professional appearances do not matter regarding his notability. His notability only hinges on that major publications take note of him and write significant articles on him, which they have done for several years. And deleting this as G4 was wrong as It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). The article had been recreated with reliable sources that showed that the subject had significant coverage in major national publications and its draft submission was approved on those grounds. Alvaldi (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

We clearly disagree on his GNG, hence this discussion, but there is no point repeating this over and over. G4 was entirely justified, if we accept that his GNG/NFOOTY did not change, and they did not change, as he didn't evolve much since 2020, only the number of references had increased. Materialscientist (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:GNG then it should've been taken to Afd. Alvaldi (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

This is your subjective opinion. It's not true that 'multiple minor sources repeating the same fact'. As for Norwegian sources, are you trying to say that there is a bias against reliable sources not written in English? I checked

WP:GNG 'Sources do not have to be available online or written in English'. For the other people interested in this discussion who don't have access to the deleted article you may check some of the sources: --Corwin of Amber (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Uuuuh...how are you an established editor, @

WP:GNG even specifically states that. It even emphasizes and italicizes the "not" in the line "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English", which I now see seemingly had to be done to deal with asinine claims like yours. Silverseren^C 20:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:RSP). This is why I find it difficult to criticize someone's interpretation too much. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the G4, only providing a different perspective. I agree that non-English sources are more heavily scrutinized and may even be discriminated against on the English 'pedia. What is the solution though? Simply accepting it because it may be a major publication wont work, even on English articles. --ARoseWolf 15:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@ARoseWolf: Fair question. For the record, I'm not Norwegian but I know of most of these publications through my own country's media as it is not uncommon for them to be quoted there. I don't think the solution should be to consider them non-reliable unless proven otherwise, rather the opposite. If there are any doubts on their credibility then information about them is fairly accessable online. This article covers the norwegian media, goes over which are the most popular one and most trusted (And the most trusted one, the NRK, has several articles on Hansen-Aarøen [7][8][9][10]) Alvaldi (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alvaldi, I think that is a very informational article on Norwegian media but it doesn't rise to the level of consensus on Wikipedia which is how almost everything is done here. The New York Times is not considered reliable because it is popular in the US or has a large audience. It is reliable because consensus among editors here at some point in a discussion or built over time in decisions has determined that to be the case. The same would need to be true for any media. --ARoseWolf 13:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the recreated version had significantly more sources than the AfDed version and they included newspaper articles primarily about the subject. Admittedly most of them are in Norwegian but that's acceptable (see
  WP:NFOOTY, which is one of the most absurdly generous notability guidelines out there. Hut 8.5 11:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Contrary to Materialscientist, notability isn't local. If there are reliable sources about him in one of the Norwegian languages, then those are usable on en.wiki: in other words, if he's notable in Norway then he's notable everywhere. I agree with Hut8.5 that NFOOTY is crazy inclusionist but as I understand it the case being made here is that he passes the GNG and not NFOOTY. It's not possible to judge that without seeing the sources and the article hasn't been tempundeleted.—S Marshall T/C 12:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, RoySmith, for the tempundelete. I disagree with the G4 but I don't think it stands the slightest chance of surviving AfD.—S Marshall T/C 16:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  S Marshall, have you checked the sources in the article? Do you think that the Norwegian newspapers are less reliable than Le Parisien which is enough to satisfy GNG for the other similar case? --Corwin of Amber (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore as draft - article has potential merit in terms of
  WP:AfC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn the recreated version was vastly improved over the original AfDed version with multiple sources that showed the subject had significant coverage in reliable major Norwegian sources over several years, none of which were included in the original AfDed version. The original AfD was only based on the subject not passing
  WP:NFOOTY is part of. Alvaldi (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy list at AfD. A disputed G4 should not have to grid through weeks at DRV. More than enough has been provided to demonstrate that there is something to discuss, and CSDs are for when there is nothing to discuss. Do not send to draft, because draftspace is optional and someone wants it in mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:TheWikiholic approved the draft. This should G4-proof it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G4, list at AfD. I was pinged here as the closer of the previous DRV. G4 talks about "sufficiently identical copies" and "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". It's marginal, but I think there were sufficient changes to disqualify G4, and we should be conservative in applying CSD. I do, however, disagree with SmokeyJoe that User:TheWikiholic approved the draft. This should G4-proof it. The AfC instructions say, Rejection is appropriate when you genuinely believe the page ... clearly meet(s) a CSD article criterion). It's circular reasoning (an incorrect usage of Contraposition?) to say that if it was accepted, then it doesn't meet CSD. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @S Marshall: I have tempundeleted the article for review. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:RoySmith, no contraposition. I guess that you do not understand the AfC review process and options. The process involves the reviewer being vetted as a reviewer, and the draft review process involves previous deletions being flagged. The option are then: (1) Reject as it would be deleted if in mainspace; (2) Decline, as the reviewer considers it possibly fixable or improvable but is below standard as it stands; (3) Do nothing and go to the next; (4) accept and mainspace, as it looks good and would probably pass AfD. There is a huge gulf between "Reject" and "Accept".

  In accepting the draft, despite a previous deletion, the AfC reviewer has added their name in saying the reasons for deletion are overcome. If they are wrong, that is reason for a discussion. A good start could be the reviewer's talk page. The formal place to discuss is AfD. Just doing a G4 speedy deletion is just rude to the reviewer. AfC approval should G4-proof the newly mainspaced article, as the review has obviously disagreed with G4 applying. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G4, list at AfD. To be honest, I do not remember the state of the article now as it was reviewed a few weeks ago. I reckon it might be well-sourced, and I'm in favor of either overturning G4 and list at AfD, or restore as the draft. Regards.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4, List at AFD - In my opinion, reviewing admins should be very cautious in applying G4 to subjects, whether living persons or companies, that may have been
  up and coming. Such subjects should be given second chances, even not long after a previous deletion, a second chance meaning another moment in article space for a possible second AFD. This article is an example of when a second AFD is in order rather than a G4. If there is doubt as to whether to give a second chance, that is reason enough to give a second chance, because CSD should be clear. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn G4 unless the key part of the nomination statement ("Since
  WP:SNOW. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn
  G4 is very clear that it "excludes pages that are not substantially identical". Andrew🐉(talk) 14:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn speedy While I can't see the old article, there are sources here since the last AfD. So send to AfD if you want it deleted. Seems unlikely to make it at AfD however. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

Before afd the subject had a couple of reliable sources like This on The Hindu and this The Diplomat but now it has more new Reliable sources which I feel Makes it pass GNG, Although a consensus on it may clear things in more better way, I am providing the new refs along with other sources which I feel makes him suitable to get that page restored so that it can be reconstructed as per new references.

New Refs

• Hindustan Times
• Milenio
• Rajasthan Patrika
• Times of India
• Indian Express

Old Refs

• The Hindu
• The Diplomat
• News 18 Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 01:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The AfD closing statement said that "[i]f a new version of this article is to be written once new and better sources can be found, it should go through the AfC process." That still seems prudent: writing up a draft with these new sources and
  submitting it for review by an experienced editor is a good solution that ensures the draft is up to snuff. I'm not sure there's really anything else for us to do here. (You can consult an archived copy of the old version here if that would be helpful to you.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Extraordinary Writ Thanks now the question arises is this that are these all refs makes him notable enough to have a stand alone article as cuz the article draft have been declined stating it fails GNG, How come that be possible for someone who seem to be notable but is declined stating that it is not even close to notability? Regards Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 07:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also as per DRV if new refs arises the undeletion can be done, so Having a better consensus on it might add some spotlight to the situationSurya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 07:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SuryaBeej, has anyone offered you any money to get this article restored to mainspace? There is a long history of UPE associated with this article.—S Marshall T/C 07:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall Hello, I am quite aware about WMF policies and as per that I am not being compensated in any way also I am not connected to the subject in any way, I am willingly questioning the deletion on my own because I looking at all the chaos this article has in past and all the refs since last AFD I feel it DOES passes the Notability criteria if not Notability Wikipedia:Bare notability for sure, I am just willing to work on it looking all the refs available Thanks Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 08:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because as per my understanding if having references like This, This, and This doesn't make him pass Three best sources then what will? cuz these are the secondary sources Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 08:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• All right. I'm going to go ahead and say that we should allow a fresh version of this article, based on the new sources, to be created. I say this because I think it's right to give a lot of extra weight to The Hindu as a source.
  Wikipedia dislikes most Indian sources. We think that India's highest-circulation English-language newspaper, The Times of India,
  the Indian Express, but there are no other Indian-nationality sources that Wikipedians judge as "generally reliable" -- but we like a far higher proportion of American and British sources. And the consequence of that, is that we judge American topics by the words of Americans, British topics by the words of Brits, but we don't judge Indian topics by the words of Indians. It's a massive systemic bias issue.

  I'm not content to allow unreliable sources, so the only way I can think of to counter systemic bias is to give extra weight to the few Indian-nationality sources that we are willing to accept. And hence, I contend that we should view coverage in The Hindu as strongly indicative of notability.—S Marshall T/C 12:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - I knew that I had seen this title before. This is a poorly written request about a salted title which has a long history of
  sockpuppetry
  . However, a reasonable request is to unsalt the title, knowing that there will be another AFD.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Verma - deleted Dec 2017
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Verma (musician) - G5
  • Seemingly unnecessary disambiguation was used to
    game the name
    , circumventing a salting
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 1, which overturned the speedy deletion and listed it at AFD
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Verma (2nd nomination), deleted Aug 2020

• UNSALT to allow creation in article space and a new AFD. If the result of the AFD is another Delete, it should be salted again, and common sense should be used as to when another article creation and AFD can be allowed.
• This should not preclude filing of any
  sockpuppet investigations
  .

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - See also
  Vivek Verma should be added to the Title Blacklist. If the article is kept after re-creation and this AFD, it should be ECP-protected to prevent the insertion of puffery by sockpuppets. If the article is deleted and salted, it will be largely because Vivek Verma is their own worst enemy in Wikipedia. If the article is kept and protected, it will be in spite of Vivek Verma being their own worst enemy in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

)

I request that the deleted editions that I had written with my main account be restored since the version of the recreated article is practically a copy-paste of what I wrote months ago, nothing new was added. BRVAFL (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC) BRVAFL (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - What exactly is being requested? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if this is an appeal of the deletion. We can see that the draft exists, and will not be accepted at this time. Not sure what is being requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• User:BRVAFL should link the deletion log, and use his main account to request undeletion, and in the first instance ask the deleting admin. Alternative, ask for help at Wikipedia:Teahouse. It sounds like there is an attribution failure in a current version? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it looks like a revision restoration from the deleted article, "under" the current draft, is what's being sought. I don't see any reason to not do that. Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd take no action. If this is a request to move the deleted versions at
  Draft:Showing Up (film), no argument is being made here why that should be done. Attribution can be made through other means if desired. Sandstein 16:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @Sandstein: well, it seems unfair to me that the person who created the draft only copied and pasted what I wrote months ago, anyone who is an administrator will be able to see that it is the same written and with the same references that I had written originally.BRVAFL (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:REFUND to properly draftify the article if desired." There's still nothing to do here for DRV in my view. Sandstein 07:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC) — And I've undone the G12 deletion because G12 says that misattributed Wikipedia content is not eligible for G12... Well, I'm leaving this for others to fiddle around with if they want to. Still doesn't look like a DRV problem to me. Sandstein 07:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

    ]

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

The original page has since been deleted, with the originating work becoming the primary topic. I am rather surprised that the AfD for the above was closed as delete without a further relisting, with 6 keep votes, 5 delete votes, and one merge vote. That does not indicate to me that there is a clear consensus to delete the page and the closer has not provided a clear explanation as to how he came to that conclusion. It does imply to me, in the absence of a properly explained rationale, as if the closer decided to go for a supervote which is aligned with his personal point of view as opposed to properly weighing the arguments made in the article. A precedent which has been established in many prior AfD's indicate that it is acceptable to redirect the page as a compromise if the closer is determined to provide a final closure on the discussion. I might be wrong...but I am also somewhat concerned as to whether the nominator's action of

• I would first remind
  notability, and this was not at any point refuted by anyone arguing to keep (one editor stated that it passes GNG, but gave no indication as to how.) AfD is, as always, not a vote count, and in this case the arguments to delete were much stronger ones. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It certainly is customary for editors who close discussions, especially in an AfD where the participation is not lacking and the outcome is somewhat contentious, to provide an explanation or rationale on why the AfD was closed as such. I don't see any clear consensus to keep, delete or even redirect the article based on the current volume of participation, and I don't agree with your presumption that somehow, the editors who oppose the deletion cannot refute on guideline or policy grounds simply because they didn't follow up. No source by source analysis was ever provided by any participant to determine clearly that available extent sources (cited or uncited) for the topic do not meet
  WP:GNG when analyzed as a whole, other then an assurance to take their word for it. And a closer certainly could make a call for the topic to be redirected or merged if that is the determined consensus, though they don't have to perform the actual task. You have also not addressed the concerns about the potential issue of campaigning/canvassing, with at least one other editor raising concerns about the nominator's actions in the main Wikiproject talk page. Haleth (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You're both right. Haleth doesn't strictly have to ask the closer before coming here, but it's rude not to. Seraphimblade doesn't strictly have to write a closing statement that explains why he discounted about half the votes, but if he didn't, he shouldn't be surprised to find himself at DRV.—S Marshall T/C 08:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some reading and thought, I would endorse the decision to delete the article. I've been unable to find a specific notability guideline that supports the "keep" !voters' contentions, and as most DRV regulars will be well aware, it's my view that the GNG overrules all other notability rules and guidelines in all cases. (DRV rightly has a history of refusing to enforce certain SNGs.) Accordingly, I think that it was for the keep !voters to demonstrate a GNG pass, and they didn't.—S Marshall T/C 11:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per S Marshall. The keeps had no apparent policy rationale, aside from invocations of a non-binding (and apparently unwritten?) Wikiproject local consensus. Discounting such rationales was a perfectly valid choice. Since the valid argument that the series qua series failed the GNG went unrebutted (aside from a single conclusory assertion), the closer was justified in closing the AfD as delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse even if three games was a written rule it wouldn’t be relevant in this situation since several members of the Wikiproject in question voted to delete the article stating that the three game thing was actually a rule of thumb and a minimum requirement for a creation of a series article not a declaration that every series with three games automatically qualifies for an article. Based on that the main rational for keeping is invalid.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfD closers are expected to look at strength of argument, not just vote count (
  WP:DGFA). Here the Keep comments were largely based on a principle from the video games wikiproject relating to video game series with three articles. This isn't a terribly strong argument, because it doesn't have any official status, doesn't seem to be written down anywhere, and participants disagreed about what exactly the principle was (several suggested it was the minimum for a series article to be considered, not a guarantee that one was appropriate). One Keep !voter claimed the subject met the notability guidelines but didn't provide any supporting reasoning or evidence. It was reasonable for the closer to downweight these comments because of this. I don't think the notice at the wikiproject constitutes inappropriate canvassing, because it was left at a neutral venue and didn't urge people to support one side or the other. Hut 8.5 18:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

File:Dalai Lama with Abdulqadir Nooruddin, CDMW, 2019.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Since the article (Abdulqadir Nooruddin) the image was intended for was deleted, I instead then moved it for use in the 14th Dalai Lama article, and added appropriate justification on the media page. The consent to delete on the XfD page was hence invalidated. The image is historic as it of a Muslim conference sponsored entirely by the 14th Dalai Lama. The image was released by tibet.net and is free for re-use (albeit without modification). Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I still don't see how the image passes
  WP:NFCC#8, which was the rationale for deleting it at FFD. Fair use images are only supposed to be used when they enhance the article in a way which can't be done without the fair use image. The image is certainly not necessary to note that the Dalai Lama was at this conference, the text of the article does that as well ("In 2019, the Dalai Lama fully-sponsored the first-ever 'Celebrating Diversity in the Muslim World' conference in New Delhi"). The image consisted of the Dalai Lama sitting alongside some other people underneath a banner for the conference, I don't see how it improves the reader's understanding of the topic more than that text does. Hut 8.5 16:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

At the time, I thought, regional Muslim leaders (from prominent Indian

WP:HISTORIC. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The standard is a lot higher than merely being relevant to the article, or usable in the article. It has to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" (

WP:NFCC#8). The fact it's the first ever such conference doesn't make it OK either. What do we get from having this image which we wouldn't get without it? Hut 8.5 18:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Gotcha. That's the only image where the Dalai Lama is seen with several prominent Muslim leaders from his country of residence (India), and I thought it was a historic image for that reason, though I understand merely being "historic" isn't strictly enough... but it is not void of any context (that is, meets Non-free use rationale guideline for historical photographs which goes Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article. by virtue of being significant because of its historical uniqueness.)

WP:NFCC#8 makes for a stricter criteria than what the guideline makes it seem Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The image and any significance it may have weren't discussed in the article though. The article did mention the event the image is depicting but that's not the same thing. Hut 8.5 13:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. Wherever there are resources such as this one, that we can lawfully and ethically use to improve our encyclopaedia, it's policy that we can and should be using them,
  irrespective of any rules or guidelines that might purport to say otherwise.—S Marshall T/C 15:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it was used in, textbook
  WP:NFCC#8 violation. Also, courtesy ping for @Whpq -FASTILY 09:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse as the original nominator. This looks like an attempt to shoehorn the image into an article regardless of utility. Its usage in the original article did not meet
  WP:NFCC#8, and after the article aas deleted, it was shifted to the Dalai Lama article where its justification is even weaker. -- Whpq (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse if this is an appeal of the close of the FFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maugham Elementary School Adolf Hitler assignment controversy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

• Allow recreation as nominator. —
  talk) 00:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  talk) 02:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Retain redirect At this point, the school system partnering with the SWC is effectively a postscript that will likely bring this all to a close going into 2021-22. I'm still not convinced this needs to be broken out alone into its own article.
  chatter) 02:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Retain redirect – I fail to see how this information (presented less than a week after the closure) would have changed the minds of the AfD participants.
  WP:EVENTCRIT is the standard. It generally requires some sort of "enduring historical significance" or "significant lasting effect", and follow-up press stories from just a month after the fact would not seem to qualify. Further discussion might be appropriate if there's still lingering analysis, say, a year from now, but relitigating this controversial AfD just days after its closure seems both unnecessary (it's already being covered in the Tenafly Public Schools article, where you or anyone else can improve it) and unwise. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Retain redirect this first started becoming a news story at the beginning of June. The fact that it's still generating a few articles about a small development a month later does not mean it has lasting significance. Is this event likely to be seen as significant a year from now? Or ten years from now? If it's still generating coverage after that amount of time then it almost certainly would be, but coverage from a month later doesn't mean the event gets past
  WP:NOTNEWS. Obviously there is a substantial element of judgement here, but the AfD participants didn't think this was likely to have lasting significance and essentially nothing has changed. Hut 8.5 08:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Wrong forum. Not in scope for DRV, unless we are asked to Endorse the AfD. No deletion has occurred. If you want to make a case to reverse the consensus decision to merge and redirect, the place to do that is the talk page of the redirect target. DRV does not micromanage content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Close this. DRV isn't for taking a mulligan on the AfD.—S Marshall T/C 12:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page currently archived at User:North8000/Commissioner Service (Boy Scouts of America)

I ask that the article be restored. It was a good useful piece with encyclopedic content, good sourcing, and was comprehensive in its coverage. Some issues cited in the original deletion nomination were fixed early in the discussion, and this was discussed with the closing admin. The stated reason for the nomination was the lack of secondary sources. That issue was resolved. There needs to be a consensus in order to delete an article. Reading the discussion, there was not a consensus to delete. Rather than determining whether or not there was a consensus to delete, the closer gave there their own interpretation of the guidelines as the basis for the close. --evrik ^(talk) 17:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as nominator. --evrik ^(talk) 17:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Certainly bring it back My first thoughts for this are from the process side. I do respect and thank the closer for their Wikipedia work, but do disagree on a few levels with what happened. Deletion requires a consensus to delete. There certainly was no consensus to delete and the closer closed it citing their own application / interpretation of the guidelines. Another item to factor in is that the article has had sourcing added both during the initial review process, and so comments earlier in that process were based on an article with less sourcing. Also it has more sourcing added since it was userfied.

Regarding the topic in general, the topic is a set of positions that I would estimate that hundreds of thousands of people have served in and for a time period spanning over 100 years. IMO it certainly has the scope, impact, enclyclopedicness, available sourcing to be considered to be wp:notable and merit an article in Wikipedia. Moreover, given that scope, it is a topic that any people would try to look up in Wikipedia and we should certainly have an article on it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying just in case my choice of words was fuzzy, that would be Overturn North8000 (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – This is a tough one, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides. Before I take a firm position, I'd like to hear from
  WP:SUPERVOTE concern, closing admins do have substantial discretion to discount !votes that have a weak basis in policy, and my brief perusal of the discussion isn't finding any clearly adequate sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I am somewhat hesitant to go down this rabbit hole. If the issue is sourcing,
  Wikipedia:PRIMARYCARE allows for the use of primary sources on "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." The BSA has three magazines, and 300 plus local councils
  . The magazines in particular give context and interpretation to the BSA issued documents. However, since you asked:

• Davidson, Lee (2017-06-04). "Top BSA leader, who is LDS, hopes Scouting-Mormon marriage lasts". The Salt Lake Tribune.
• Jordan, Benjamin René (2016). Modern Manhood and the Boy Scouts of America: Citizenship, Race, and the Environment, 1910-1930. UNC Press Books. p. 151.
  ISBN 9780299094041
  .
• McKenzie, Joe (2020-10-28). "BSA Scouts looking forward while remembering start in Salina". The Salina Journal.

There are more than 25 references on the page. There are also many secondary sources in this google search

--evrik ^(talk) 22:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the aspect that being a large, decentralized organization, there are many independent sources that can be called a part of it but which shouldn't be written off as being primary. An analogy that carries that further just for clarity, for an article on the human race, we don't automatically write off everything written by a human as being "primary". With many tens of millions of people having been members, any one of them writing something while citing their scouting credentials should not get written off as primary or not independent. And then double that for the fact that is an article about a subset of BSA, and so the superset is not a part of that subset. Both of these would significantly expand that list. North8000 (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn No consensus to delete, in fact comments to delete were in the minority. Sweet68camaro (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Commissioner Service is a unique and significant role in Scouting that has served an important role. In addition, I do not believe the guidelines for deletion were properly followed. Cguy9696 (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to merge. I disagree with the comments above: in my view, the closer correctly found a consensus that the provided sources do not meet the GNG. (The nom, the deletes, and the merges all agreed on this.) That's the case both numerically (5–2, by my count), and by strength of argument: the sources listed all either provide
  alternative to deletion (merging) was presented, and none of the deletes displayed any opposition to it. In such a case, the AfD should have been closed as merge. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm more concerned (for reasons described above) that this extremely broad topic receives coverage. To me a separate article is simply the apparent best way to to that. So hearing "merge" doesn't bother me a bit. But in checking back at the proposed merge idea, the proposed target is the council article. But the scope of the subject and content is broader than just local councils so that wouldn't fit. The "lowest" level article that I found that could encompass it is the top level BSA article. But that is already fully loaded highly condensed article covering a diverse multi-million person organization over a 100+ years of history and there is no room for the content there. IMO a seperate article remains as the only viable way that I can conceive of. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, for me there is a narrow but sufficient consensus in that discussion that the article should not have remained, and as per EW above this is both on numbers and strength of argument. I believe assessing the consensus as either 'delete' or 'merge & redirect' was available to the closer based off this consensus, and given they assessed it in this fashion, we must support the closer in doing so by endorsing their close & subsequent deletion. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to selective merge (though, frankly, there was rather little consensus). Merge or redirect seem to me better closing options if some sort of definite decision is desired and they would seem to meet the problems identified by those !voting delete at the AfD. Also the AFD nominator at least at one point seems to have accepted merge as a viable outcome.[44] I don't think anyone thought none of this should be covered in Boy Scouts of America or some associated article so it seems churlish to make it deliberately difficult to do this. Thincat (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the AfD and deny re-creation pending a
  WP:!voters not knowing what informs a notability type decision to delete, and a large number of low quality sources have been thrown into the mix. Only two good sources are required, and bamboozling by throwing up dozens of poor sources is not productive. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Given the amount of attention and editing on the draft User:North8000/Commissioner Service (Boy Scouts of America), Allow mainspacing and renomination at AfD. Even if quickly renominated, I anticipate a different quality of discussion. The is functionally equivalent to a "overturn to no consensus", but I endorse the AfD close as it stood. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse--the closer got it right. Note that in this review we see the same poor arguments, for instance, "Commissioner Service is a unique and significant role in Scouting", and the same poor sourcing. A few links are provided above, and in this one, for instance, we learn that "The lack of military training and martial emphasis in the evolved BSA also prompted several military men, such as [Verbeck and] Bomus, to quit their positions as BSA National Commissioners", which, for the topic, means exactly nothing. All these sources confirm nothing more than the most mundane of things, like "The unit commissioner is there to support and guide the Scoutmaster and other adult leaders of the troop" or "The bylaws call the national commissioner the chief morale officer"--nothing more. The "more than 25 references" aren't in fact "references" that say anything meaningful about the position; they are mere mentions which at best confirm that the position exists, and that some people had that function. The careful reader will note that none of these articles are about the position: they are about people who happen to occupy the position. And the other sourcing, as I pointed out in the AfD, is stuff like this--a survey commissioned by the BSA--or this--a Facebook post, I kid you not--or clearly primary material. So when the closer said "no really independent reliable sources have been brought forward", they were absolutely correct. Drmies (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that Drmies has weighed in we should discuss the elephant in the room. This is a quote from the original discussion on deletion, this nomination is clearly an act retaliation, and a prime example of
    standards of behavior expected of an admin. Not only should Drmies' comments be viewed with a wary eye, but they should face some sort of sanction for their poor behavior. 50.204.16.210 (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Evrik, did you forget to sign? Drmies (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to merge I don't fault the closer here for their review of the sources, but I think at the end of the day, closing as delete seems to be a bit strained, with most commenters suggesting retaining the content in some form (as Extraordinary Writ says above). I have no opinion on where the merged content should end up. A relist or further discussion may be informative of where the content should end up. --Enos733 (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to merge (full disclosure: I proposed "Merge/Redirect" in the AfD). By raw !vote tally, 3 were for deletion, 2 for keep, and 2 for merge, i.e., a slight majority favored preservation of the article's content in some form. Having fallen short of GNG, a merge/redirect therefore seemed to be best. Significantly, the AfD nominator, Drmies, said of merge/redirect: "that is just fine with me" — which the closer didn't address.  JGHowes  ^talk 15:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the problem with these "overturn to merge" arguments is that if there is/were anything worth merging, the article is already userfied and people are free to use it to merge whatever they like. There just isn't really there there, so to say. No one has made much of a case at all that this meets the standard of GNG, and the closer read that correctly. If anyone wants to merge something, have at it. The article is in userspace. If someone wants to redirect it to the BSA page, sure, I guess, but it's not like anyone is going to accidentally stumble on the old title of the article as a search term. There just is no compelling reason to proceed with anything else here. Go Phightins! 18:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• But we are here to review the close of the AFD (or am I being too pedantic?). The close of delete precluded any subsequent merge and
  WP:REFUND? Thincat (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• As I recall....possibly it came up. The closer offered to userfy. I said I'd take it unless somebody else wanted it. Then they userfied it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, I userfied it per a request at
  WT:SCOUTING. I think the close was reasonable, but if people think overturn to merge is a better move, then it’s in user space and people can have at it. But there’s not much argument, as near as I can tell, that the closer missed a secret consensus to keep, so any discussion beyond that strikes me as semantic at best. Go Phightins! 01:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thank you for your reply and for the undeletion. The discussion is at WT:WikiProject Scouting#BSA Commissioner AfD. I think you were entitled (and right) to overturn the AfD close. The argument for deletion was that the topic is not notable based on lack of GNG-compliant sourcing. That was not a reason for excluding redirecting or merging nor was it a dominant (or even consensual) argument in the AfD discussion. The AfD close was not correct and I'm glad the matter is now moot. Thincat (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment can someone please tell me where this content should go if it were merged? There is a lot of content here to add to another page. --evrik ^(talk) 16:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I propose merging/redirect to Scout Commissioner#Boy Scouts of America.  JGHowes  ^talk 02:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse with the option of restoring to mainspace as a redirect if needed for a merge. The real question here is whether we should have a standalone article about the subject. If we decide that we shouldn't then the question of whether the subject should be covered elsewhere is a secondary one, and any decision made there could easily be changed outside the AfD anyway. The discussion seems to have come to a consensus that the
  GNG wasn't met. Much was made about the existence of secondary sources, but the GNG requires significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The sources which were provided were described as either not independent or not devoting significant coverage to the article subject, and I don't see much of an attempt to argue otherwise. Hut 8.5 12:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I don't know if this is advocating a mild version of wp:IAR or what, but this is a group of positions that hundreds of thousands of people have served in for over 100 years. It doesn't have a SNG that e.g. makes an individual sports person have an article if they did it for a living for one day, and IMO an unusually strict and literal interpretation of GNG should not be the criteria. It's sort of a "sub article" of Boy Scouts of America article with material that is too substantial to fit into that article. The organization is so large and decentralized that many otherwise-sources can be interpreted as being related. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Whether kept, redirected, or merged,
  WP:ATD precludes deletion as a policy-based outcome. That is, those !voting for deletion without addressing the potential of a merger were not providing policy-based rationales, and should have been discounted by the closer. That is, while there's certainly a good rationale for not retaining it as an independent article, there is not a rationale for destroying the content as entirely unsuitable for the encyclopedia, which is what a delete outcome would mean. Jclemens (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn The article on Commissioner Service is about a distinctive function in Scouting, particularly for Boy Scouts of America, but also for other Scout associations around the world. My understanding is that sourcing issues that others found missing/lacking have been solved. This article should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokgamen (talk • contribs) 00:26, July 8, 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus, because with all due respect for the many impassioned arguments made above, the fact remains that there wasn't a consensus.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Please. The article is well-sourced within and outside Scouting's circles. The information is valid, and assists the novice Scouter with background information on one of the most important features of volunteer Scouting -- the role and designation of the Commissioner. There was no consensus to delete the original item. Settummanque!Settummanque (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article should be restored, and if necessary undergo another another AFD to prove it belongs. Right now , the discussion is Overturn 8, Overturn to merge 3, Endorse 4, and Other 1. 50.204.16.210 (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Drmies: The unsigned edit was by Mokgamen, but that has fixed. --evrik ^(talk) 00:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Request to the closing admin. If the article above is restored, could you also please restore these:

• BSA International Commissioner
• Council Commissioner
   
• District Commissioner (Scouting)
    
• Francis H. Olmstead, Jr.
   
• National Commissioner of the Boy Scouts of America
   
• Peter Bomus
   
• Peter S. Bomus

Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 00:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]