Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 17

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

The article was deleted 7 year ago. Subject has received considerable attention given his coverage of Donald Trump since then and based on the sources available, I believe him to pass

• Endorse This is not what deletion review is for. We can only review whether the decision was the correct one to make based on the participation of the AfD discussion. With five delete votes and no keep votes, the outcome of the AfD was clearly correct. Maybe, things have changed since then and you could recreate the article through
  Rusf10 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • WP:DRVPURPOSE(3) compel me to? Or does that refer to procedural information, e.g., voters being identified as sock-puppets, so any AfC reviewer can recreate articles previously deleted in an AfD? I've stumbled upon multiple drafts having been previously deleted today so any guidance would be welcome. Yes, I would have to do some rewriting before publishing it or decline it in the hope that the original author returns. 15 (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • No, this falls under reasons deletion review should not be used, specifically 1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment--
      Rusf10 (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• I'm sorry,
  Rusf10: DRV does have some poorly-documented functions that it's acquired over the years, and one of them is to review drafts where there's previously been a deletion. I know this is a bit of an easter egg, but in fact the nominator is in the right place. I'd say permit. The 7-year-old deletion was clearly correct but the new sources show that this person's notability has fundamentally changed in the meantime.—S Marshall T/C 00:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'm not sure I would accept that draft at AfC since I don't think the sources are good enough (though I only cross-checked what looked like the best ones), but I have no problem with moving this to mainspace if it's ready. (Also, this question was asked at the right place.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The reason why the appellant is here is right there in
  Deletion Review Purpose 3: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;". It appears that all of the regular editors here agree that that clause does not mean what it says. Maybe that clause needs to be reworded, because every time that an editor comes here for a case similar to this one, the filer is told that they should not be here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @
    Rusf10 (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment' to
      User:Rusf10 - The two clauses are unrelated. The one about when not to use DRV says: "because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment". This case is not a disagreement with the outcome, because, in my view, the outcome is time-bound, and is what to do at the time that the XFD is closed. The outcome was to Delete, not to Salt. So the clause that you quote can be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]

  @

  talk) 13:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Allow Submission of Draft, although the filer had the right to submit a draft anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources are strong and this DRV really isn't needed. Yes, point #3 of DRV applies "The article was deleted 7 year ago. Subject has received considerable attention given his coverage of Donald Trump since then and based on the sources available, I believe him to pass
  WP:JOURNALIST (4)" ("if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;"). But a 7 year-old AfD doesn't need us to give permission to recreate. Nom should contact me once this DRV is over and I'll approve the draft. Sources in the Washington Examiner (real reporter) and Forbes (real reporter) are enough to pass the GNG by themselves. Hobit (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

)

I don't feel that 'no consensus' close, which is de facto keep, is justified. There were only two keep votes, versus three deletes (including the nomination), two redirects, one merge and redirect, and finally, one draftify (with a comment about possible redirecting). Given the votes and arguments, I'd think that a redirect with SOFTDELETE allowing interested parties for a merge would be best, and before that, it would be polite to ask User:BD2412 if they were offering to host the draft of this article, just in case. But I don't think there was any consensus or majority to warrant keeping this article. Another option would be just to relist it, given the discussion didn't seem stale (three votes in the last 3 days). As such I request a review of this closure, with suggestions that it is either changed to soft redirect or relisted. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Delete (possibly with a redirect)- There were three delete votes and two redirects. That's five people who believe the article should not exist. You can make it six if you count the draftify since that basically is a delete with the only difference being the possibility to bring it back later. Finally, as it was pointed out in the discussion, the sourcing provided by one of the Keep proponents fell far short of meeting
  Rusf10 (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn, as there is a clear consensus that there should not be an article at this title. Regarding Piotrus' question, my proposal was to move the article to draft space, where it would either be improved or deleted. There is not much to merge that is not already in the logical target article, so a redirect would be in order. BD2412 T 03:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• We have reliable sources that discuss the hobby, yes? It is niche, but I'm not seeing a reason to delete. That said, overturn to redirect is probably the right outcome from that discussion. Silly outcome. See the parable/story on the my personal page. I firmly believe we should have articles like this where we have reliable sources. In this case, we seem to. But that's not where the discussion went sadly... Hobit (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be very very clear, there is no consensus to "redirect and delete" and there is no real way to get that outcome from the discussion. Redirect remains a form of keeping and there is no valid reason to redirect and delete that I can see. Hobit (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Reading the discussion, the consensus not to have the article is significantly stronger than any consensus to have an article. I don't think a no consensus is incorrect if each individual outcome gets evaluated individually, but that's not really the correct outcome when the consensus is so clear not to have the article at that title. I'd overturn the close, I think redirect is probably the strongest/ATD choice here, but I will leave it at the discretion of the closer depending on consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 12:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn there was a definite consensus in that discussion that we shouldn't have a standalone article about the subject, and the fact that opinion was split as to whether to delete/redirect/merge/draftify it isn't a great argument for closing as no consensus. Furthermore the few people who did support keeping it didn't exactly have great arguments to present. Redirecting (or possibly disambiguating) sounds like the best compromise outcome. Hut 8.5 18:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There wasn't a consensus about what to do, so I think it's very harsh to give the closer a hard time for closing as "no consensus". The nominator's request for a relisting is reasonable in the circumstances and should, I think, be granted.—S Marshall T/C 00:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete per Rusf10. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closer is an experienced admin who heard all the arguments and did not find a consensus to delete. The OP failed to discuss their finding with them and now just seems to want a recount. But, per
  WP:NOTAVOTE, it's the strength of argument that matters and the closer did not find this decisive. As for the facts of the matter, they may be hard to discern in all the verbiage but adequate sources were found such as Equipment World: Construction scale models... and Plant & Machinery Model World Magazine (sample issue) which demonstrate detailed coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Rusf10 (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Notice how Rusf10 does not address the strong sources listed here, just as he refused to acknowledge them during the discussion. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that your two best sources are a joke. The first one is an article found in a newsletter called

Rusf10 (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it's a safe bet that I've not heard of the vast majority of sources out there. Is your best argument for dismissing those sources that "no one has even heard of (them)?" Hobit (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that I personally haven't heard of it, its that there is nothing out there establishing the source's credibility.--

Rusf10 (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

We somehow hosted spam about their parent company,

Cryptic 02:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]