Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February

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

Since the discussion in 2009, Bass had become a prominant member of the band, writing most of it's songs, producing two of it's albums, he now owns a new studio, has multiple interviews and articles, becoming something of a second frontman. PurpleBuffalo (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There's nothing stopping you (or anyone else) from writing another article about him, and you don't need anyone's permission to do so. The old version is still visible in the edit history if you want to use any of it. Hut 8.5 08:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, working on it. PurpleBuffalo (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject was identified notably in the discussion itself. The page got deleted due to promotional tone. There is a draft

• Continue to Allow Review of Draft - The close said that the issue was with the
  tone of the article, so that there is no barrier to review of a new draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• There's nothing for us to review here, appellant can submit the draft through AfC anytime they wish. But I've added the AfC draft template to the draft article as it was missing. Jumpytoo Talk 04:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It is submitted as per the suggestion. GA99 (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. The close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RattanIndia said, "There's consensus, albeit not the strongest, that the topic is notable, but the article is not in a fit state to be published." I consider the draft to be neutrally written and to have addressed the concerns raised in the close, so I support restoration to mainspace. The article even includes negative coverage: "There have been allegation on irregularities on RattanIndia by Lone Star Funds with which the company had formed a finance company.' Cunard (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The article in draft seems fine. It's not 100% clear it meets
  WP:GNG and so I'd be fine with the draft being accepted (and quite possibly put back to AfD...) Hobit (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Nominated on February 3rd, 2022 to determine notability. It received 5 Keep Votes by established editors

• Overturn to no consensus is my stance. WexfordUK (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WexfordUK (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC) blocked as sock [reply]

• Overturn to no consensus while the AfD was plagued by sockpuppetry, there were plenty of keep votes made in good faith. Per the close, I discounted all "keep" votes that weren't from "more experienced editors" which leaves us with Alansohn, Editorofthewiki, Roman Spinner, Lamona, Saiskysat, myself, and MrsSnoozyTurtle. On the delete side we have the nominator Tamzin, Oaktree b, Eggishorn, Anton.bersh, Liz, and Doczilla. The closer did not discuss the strength of the arguments on the delete and keep sides and thus I'm assuming each has equal weight. Thus, we have seven keep votes vs six delete votes and therefore the statement that "the consensus is clearly to delete" is completely false.
  talk) 16:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn to no consensus - I had seen previous articles for Cerrito and I was ready to immediately start an AfD when I saw the newest version pop up on my watchlist. But in reviewing the references, I saw that the notability standard was met with in-depth independent reliable and verifiable references and I voted Keep, as did several other experienced editors, all of whom specifically cited the sources as meeting standards. While I would have closed this as a Keep, the claim that consensus was "clearly to delete" is simply not backed up by the actual discussion that took place. Alansohn (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse even accepting that the raw numbers of experienced editors commenting were about equal,
  WP:SIGCOV as it has usually been interpreted in AfD discussions about BLP subjects and the UPE and socking concerns cannot be dismissed out-of-hand as irrelevant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The delete voters did not "all explicitly address sourcing quality". Doczilla's vote read "Delete and salt. Also, do not give into the socks." while Liz's vote was a form of

  talk) 20:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

That is not true. Or did you miss the long discussion about the value of sources from NJ.com because we went back and forth about that at great length. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. I cannot see how "the consensus is clearly to delete" if a greater number of experienced voters said "keep" than the number of experienced voters who said "delete". There are obvious AfD nominations of individuals who are so non-notable that even the most hardcore inclusionist would vote to delete, but Mario Cerrito is definitely not one of those. I voted "keep" simply because anyone with 48 inline cites and a good number of credits listed on IMDb appears to be automatically notable. Of course, mine was not the only "keep" vote, with the experienced "keep" votes ultimately constituting a slim majority. At the very least, the article should have been retained as "no consensus". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, besides fixing the first relist, I had no other particular involvement in this, though I did follow it somewhat and admit to being surprised, and perplexed, by the consensus reached by the closer. The rationale does seem a little too much like a head count when this
  is not what AfD is about and there was no evidence of the !votes being analysed as such. There seems to be enough credible expressions of keep as well as delete and I would have thought this is a classic "no consensus" conclusion. It probably doesn't help that the closer jumped in with this closure perhaps a bit premature and when the weight of opinion had shifted slightly closer to keep from the previous relist. Alas, I don't think the outcome can be considered as being explicit. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Noting parallel conversation yesterday evening: User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Mario_Cerrito_AfD. I think the nuances of DRV and a complicated AfD are a challenge for a new editor, but I wasn't able to fully assist WexfordUK before I had to go offline. As I mentioned there, I did not have time to delve into the merits of the various !votes, but have no issue with Seraphimblade's "early" close after my relist. These month long AfDs don't help with the backlog and if one can be closed, it should be. Star Mississippi 23:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus as per nominator and other contributors. Sockpuppetry was not a reason to discard the views of the established voters, only a reason to ignore the statements by the sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus per above arguments. Deb (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus I believe its against Wikipedia guideline to delete a article which has more vote in AFD. Hope we should also consider the above points in favor.°Saiskysat (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's not about vote counting. Second, you have 25 edits, how did you find your way to a deletion review discussion? Just curious given the sockpuppetry and paid editing surrounding articles about this person. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse good close, with much better arguments by the delete voters. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I expect to be bashed here for not discussing the details of this AfD discussion but I just wanted to comment, how can we have 3 pages about this individual salted, so as to prevent ANY article recreation about him, and yet still he still has an article on Wikipedia? I understand that this recent article may be of higher quality than previous articles but I think the fact that every previous deletion decision on articles about Mario Cerrito has led to page deletions might have influenced the closer of this particular AFD discussion. Should we just accept that if article creators can find a version of a person's name that hasn't been salted, then article recreation is an okay idea? Because in other cases, an attempt at article creation at an unsalted page title, when the previous articles have been deleted and their page titles have been salted, has often led to speedy deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: It's a perfectly reasonable expression to make and the previous salting will influence some no matter what, but the issue here seemed to be more around the socking, although there was definitely some credible expressions of keep. I think going with NC is the closest to satisfying both sides, as it doesn't conclude it outright as keep, but in the same respect I don't think, looking at this afd alone, that it's a straight delete (and I think you have to judge each article and AfD on its own merit). As is often the case in DR, those who voted against the conclusion will want to overturn and those who were on the same side will endorse, which is how this is playing out. A fresh AfD may be best here. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bungle I agree. As much as I was in favor of keep in the AfD- I think it’s really split down the middle (slight lean keep) and I feel a closing of no consensus of the AfD was merited. Hence why most are saying here overturn to no consensus. It for sure wasn’t a delete and it for sure wasn’t a keep.WexfordUK (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC) blocked as sock[reply]

• Endorse (did not !vote in the discussion, but did comment) - Given that WexfordUK was a 2-day old account when it interacted with the AfD, that Roman Spinner was improperly notified as I and other editors have argued in the discussion, and that Saiskysat is not an established editor (25 edits, first AfD ever, return from inactivity for this AfD only, including Deletion review), my final tally is 7-5 for deletion. (Del: Tamzin, Oaktree b, Eggishorn, Feline Hymnic, Anton.bersh, Liz, Doczilla; Keep: Alansohn, Editorofthewiki, Lamona, NemesisAT, MrsSnoozyTurtle). Strength of arguments being roughly dependent on whether local sources constituted reliable, significant coverage or not, I believe the closer was correct in closing this as delete.
  WP:NOTPROMO concerns were also not sufficiently addressed by keep voters. Pilaz (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I also take note that the three editors that I have excluded from my tally have taken part in this deletion review. Pilaz (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilaz: The closer literally says he’s a “deletionist” on his page. Another closer relisted this article on AFD to gain a more thorough consensus. It got one delete vote and then two keeps and was deleted a few hours after it was leaning keep. That is what this deletion review is about. It wasn’t even set to be over until 3-4 days after he closed it prematurely. WexfordUK (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC) blocked as sock[reply]

7-5 for deletion is not "consensus is clearly to delete" as the closer suggested.

talk) 10:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. If new deletion rationales appear in the deletion discussion and no one disputes them, it's probably because they have valid foundations. Pilaz (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn to No Consensus After reading the AfD it absolutely looks to be No Consensus. Many arguments for both sides.ValidatedKing (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC) blocked as sock[reply]
• Noting for the record that I have just blocked the OP and another one of the !voters in this discussion as block-evading socks of the same user who plagued the original AfD with socks. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps not too surprising and the entire debate really has been unfortunately compromised by such activity. I still stand by my assessment of the AfD but would encourage another run of it, with much more scrutiny of participants. Only if several who !voted keep choose to endorse in this DR may that change things somewhat, but I think notwithstanding, a fresh debate may be appropriate. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Ukrainian coup d'état plot (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The

• Endorce, Allow draftification. It was properly deleted per
  WP:NOTNEWS, but the content and reference in the history could be used in another article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I do not expect undeletion to draft to lead to fruit, but to satisfaction for User:Thriley, to be sure that no worthy information is being lost.

  Alternatively, list the reference(s) used here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The last revision cited The Guardian, Washington Post, Security Service of Ukraine, Reuters, and Financial Times. —

  Cryptic 11:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Looking at Thriley’s three sources offered in the AfD, I suggest that he looking to whether mention of this announced coup rumour can get a mention at

  2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Prelude. I’m not sure it can, I think sources independent of the Ukrainian President are needed, commenting on his comments, to beat NOTNEWS. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse deletion I would not be opposed to a draft, but I think it'd be a waste of time. This was a nothingburger, and no sources since then have covered this in any meaningful light. Curbon7 (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I see no indication that the AfD was closed incorrectly and people there did raise legitimate arguments that a) it doesn't need a separate article and b) the sources are just repeating the same announcement. There is an ongoing war, that doesn't mean that every little thing that happened in it needs its own article. I am not explicitly opposed to a draft, but don't support it either per Curbon7's point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse draftification The information at the very least could be rescued and merged into the main invasion article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, a correct close.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the right close of the discussion (without having seen the original article), without opinion on any draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thriley, I think you neglected to inform the AFD closer about this discussion which I believe is part of the process of Deletion Review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Row: Undercover (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article about this specific game was deleted and turned into a redirect to the main series article without any discussion. Several references to articles specifically about this game at sources listed as reliable sources at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(video_games) were given (IGN, Eurogamer, Kotaku, The Verge, and Polygon), which, I believe, established independent notability for this specific game, which is a game in a popular series that has been officially released by its developer, and had received significant coverage beyond mere mentions in these reliable sources. 2019UKUser (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't deleted, it was just redirected, so this is the wrong venue. Any user can undo that redirect. Given the sources in the article, it probably meets the GNG. Hobit (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Because a redirect is a quasi-deletion, coming here was a reasonable error by the appellant. Because redirecting is considered a normal editing action, it can, but should not, lead to
  RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The article has only been blanked & redirected once, so per
  WP:ATD-R, revert the redirect, and then anyone can take it to AfD if they feel strongly about it. Jumpytoo Talk 07:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I concur with the above advice and clarification that a redirect created by a regular editor is not an action that needs to be reviewed here. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York)‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

There were significant procedural errors: the discussion was closed early and also by an editor who was clearly involved in the discussion. It was also closed as merge instead of redirect, thus forcing a merge when the article had existed as a redirect for 10 years. Rschen7754 05:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about an article which was put to AFD in 2009, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York), which closed "no consensus". Then later Rschen7754 and everyone else in 2012 Talk:County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York)/GA2 discussion decided it should be merged to List of county routes in Onondaga County, New York. That was the obvious consensus, by five !votes to no other votes, by my quick reading of the discussion. The merge was not implmented, as I happened to notice recently when the 2009 AFD discussion was edited (by Malnadachbot; aside: why is a bot being allowed to alter such old AFDs?). I was at the moment without energy to do the proper merger and also was not up to speed in how to put on "merger required" tags myself, and I restored the article with an edit summary calling for merger to be implemented. I suppose that was technically incorrect to do that, I am sorry if that bothers people. I guess I had hoped someone would help take care of the problem. Then, instead, Rschen7754 opened a new AFD, to which I objected. I sorry if I have offended Rschen somehow, if that is what has happened, by my objecting to their opening a new AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York) (2nd nomination). Indeed I think their action was unnecessary and unhelpful and was just causing drama. I asked Rschen to please just drop it, and then they open this deletion review.

I am not sure what Rschen wants from this, besides to chastise me for not following some rules perfectly. Suppose that is done. Then what else does Rschen want? Does Rschen want to insist that nothing can be merged from the old article? Would they edit war against stuff being merged? I don't see point to having a big deletion review being done, unless others feel it is actually productive to attach blame to me or to Rschen for no purpose affecting actual content of mainspace Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - this closure is a complete abuse of the AfD process. This dispute started when Doncram restored an article which was previously redirected, arguing that a previous discussion supported merging it, that no merge was done, and that the article should remain until that happened. (This doesn't make a lot of sense to me - if you think something should be merged, just merge it. There's no need to restore an article nobody thinks should exist.) Doncram then participated in the AfD [1][2] and then closed it as Merge after it had been open for two days [3]. Doncram is now saying that the page should be merged because that's what the AfD decided [4]. Non-procedural AfD closures should be done by uninvolved editors, which is essentially the opposite of what happened here, and there wasn't any particular reason to close the debate five days early. Probably the best outcome here would be to redirect the thing and let anybody who is interested (including Doncram) merge any content they think is appropriate. Hut 8.5 08:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (speedy close SK#1). Should never have been at AfD. Revert the bold recreation, back to the long standing redirect, simple
  WP:BRD. Discuss at the talk page of the redirect target, Talk:List_of_county_routes_in_Onondaga_County,_New_York. Keep as a redirect subject to consensus on that talk page to recreate the page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• WP:SLAP the AfD closer, User:Doncram for the blatant WP:INVOLVED close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy overturn, closed by someone who was not independent. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn - You can't be a partipant, and then (badly) close the AfD. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn obviously. For one thing, when most people say redirect and there is no uncontested & overwhelming argument for merge, I'd expect a redirect. Secondly, you don't close a discussion in which you participated in -
  WP:INVOLVED usually applies to nonadmin closes as well. Three, I don't see a reason for a speedy close. Also, not so much about the merits of the close itself but I expect that closers refrain from making comments like Gee, I am sorry to have given Rschen an excuse to cause drama, by their creating this unnecessary AFD. in a discussion they closed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oh, it was a non-admin closure. I'm vacating it per
  WP:DPR#NAC. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Kuraudo is the Hepburn romanisation of the Japanese name of

• Deletion review is a venue to address issues where the deletion process has not been followed. It is not a location to get a "second bite at the cherry" by re-arguing points that were (or could have been) made at the original deletion discussion.
  Keep deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The discussion was closed as delete contrary to existing policy at

  WP:REDIRECT quoted above. My interpretation is that since no reference to the policy was made, significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. 9³ (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  WP:OTHERPARENT). Stifle (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  WP:DRVPURPOSE 3 and because the closer applied improper judgment as there was, as per the deletion process guideline, Conflict between the views expressed and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and he should not have closed. 9³ (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse - The right close, and a correct application of the
  guideline on foreign redirects. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

WP:FORRED? 9³ (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse consensus was clear and within policy grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 20:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The clear consensus of the discussion was that (a) "Kuraudo" is the romanisation of "Cloud" not "Cloud Strife" (c.f.
  WP:FORRED. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Another attempt to whitewash the article by deletion by a bunch of SPA accounts. Jain is notable many times over as shown by the many high-quality references that cover him in great depth. Hipal (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woah woah woah, calm down. Accusing people of whitewashing isn't doing anything. (That close was def ridiculous though. I was in the middle of an IAR unclose when you posted this to DRV, but since process is process and you beat me to it I'll let this run it's course.)

casualdejekyll 02:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

There is a substantial history of whitewashing attempts by employees and family members of Jain. --Hipal (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COIN reports include: WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Naveen_Jain, WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_46#Naveen_Jain, WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_67#COI_editing_at_Naveen_Jain_yet_again, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Sleep_Country_USA, WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_128#Just_odd --Hipal (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I never did any proper !voting.. so, for the record, I'm all for Relist at AfD to generate a less scuffed consensus. (Maybe not overturn, though.)

casualdejekyll 03:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note as closing admin: The deletion consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain (2nd nomination) was clear. Only one other than Hipal voted to keep it. Including the nominator, that makes 6 to 2, for deletion. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 03:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not a vote, all the SPA accounts should have indicated something is amiss, the mention of substantial coverage by major press should not be ignored, the history of PAID and COI editing in order to whitewash or delete the article indicates more care should be taken evaluating the AfD, and even the most basic attempt at checking shows the subject is notable. --Hipal (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with this, and as of right now there are more users that agree it should be deleted. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to disparage your counting abilities, but I see only two editors who opined to delete. —

Cryptic 03:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Relist OK, this is a very weird AfD. The nominator, appellant (at least initially), and one delete voter copied their rationales from the previous AfD, and 3 of the delete voters seem to be SPAs that might be sockpuppetry (won't make a SPI though, leaving that to someone else if they want). I also have my suspicions against one other !delete in the AfD. With these suspicions, I don't think there is a true strong consensus to delete, and a relist to get more opinions is needed. Jumpytoo Talk 04:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn or relist - there is clearly sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry or external canvassing going on here. Of the 6 people who supported deleting the article, 4 had very small edit counts (17, 17, 19, and 56 edits).
  WP:SNOW (which is clearly not applicable here). Hut 8.5 08:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. The deletion process has not been followed correctly, in that the closer failed to give appropriate (low) weight to delete arguments that were from very new accounts or that cited WP:SNOW, which manifestly did not apply either at the time of deletion or at any other time. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Due to the suspicious activity from multiple of the delete !votes possibly stemming from sock or meatpuppetry, as well as their claims that the 34 sources do not address the subject directly without any source analysis presented, I'm not seeing how the arguments were adequately weighed based on their merits. I see no benefit in immediately relisting if there is a current coordinated effort to remove its contents, in light of Hipal's links above. ✗plicit 13:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. There are multiple delete votes that reference WP:SNOW, which makes no sense in this context. This has to be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Something very hinky here. The SNOW votes are bizarre - both the keep and the deletes. The number of low-edit contributions is concerning. The lack of policy-related arguments. Need a thorough SPI check too, and a wider participation in the AFD. Nfitz (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn 5 delete votes were cast. One incorrectly applies SNOW. Two claim a general lack of any sources, but as per this discussion, 34 sources had been included in the article. That leaves us at only two relevant delete votes, which claim that only the companies have notability. In fact, they are repeats of the arguments used in the original nomination, using no source analysis, which was closed as keep. Taking into account that no new well-grounded policy rationale has been advanced to delete, the close should be overturned to keep. Dege31 (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Requesting immediate, temporary undelete as this is worked out because of the extremely troubling problems around this, and the need to reference the article to demonstrate how deep the problems go. --Hipal (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What "extremely troubling problems"? Admins are humans too, they screw up. Though screwing up after many years of doing it right may be a little concerning.

  casualdejekyll 19:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That a well-established, well-written, well-referenced, well-reviewed article was deleted due to paid editors making vacuous deletion arguments. --Hipal (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There appear to be numerous in-depth sources in the deleted article, which most can't see, because the article is deleted. Can the article please be temporarily restored? Hipal doesn't do themselves any favour by turning a simple routine request into a rant. Nfitz (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And right on schedule, a new SPA has appeared to create a new article whitewashed of the original content--Hipal (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've done a temporary undelete, however there isn't much point as this discussion becomes eligible for closure very soon and the deletion will almost certainly be overturned when it's closed. Hut 8.5 17:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and semi-protect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain (3rd nomination), without prejudice to it being renominated for deletion by an editor in good standing (a mildly unlikely scenario though that may be). SN54129 17:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the socks slept long enough to be well past the autoconfirmed speedbump. —
    Cryptic 18:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Great, create-protection then. After all, if the hypothetical aforementioned respected editor does present a case for deletion, that's easy enough to action. But our priority should be not to have our time wasted like this. SN54129 18:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Since this hasn't been mentioned here so far,
  User:Cryptic. BusterD (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist It does not appear that there was enough knowledgeable editors commenting to reach any consensus. --Jayron32 19:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate adding this very late in the DRV discussion, but we could just pretend this incredibly odd AfD never happened. There were very few participants who seemed like they are acting in good faith, including the nominator, and the remaining votes would be a no consensus or relist. A relist would benefit the SPIs and a no consensus is probably correct, but I think vacating is a stronger result - I have no idea if he's notable, but a no consensus sort of implies notability is marginal, when we should be implying this was just a bad AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 20:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (no prejudice to Vacate) Now that I've seen the article itself, I'm beyond shocked at how this AFD was closed. Many of the references in the article easily met GNG. Both Keep votes noted that it had good references, while the deletes argue the opposite. But really - I only looked at four, and three meet GNG: 2003, 2010, 2017, and we have significant coverage, in major media outlets, over a period of about 15 years. Nfitz (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Definitely a mistake on the part of a well-intentioned closer not examining the quality of the arguments. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Only known sketch of the Little Red-Haired Girl by Schulz.webp (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This and other files were speedily deleted as copyright infringement, but they were from the Peanuts Wiki, which states at the bottom of every page that "Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted". Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid. Uploading a copyrighted image to Peanuts Wiki, or any other site which makes its content available under a free licence, doesn't automatically make it available under a free licence. The original copyright still applies. This sketch was done by Charles M. Schulz, who died in 2000, so it's practically guaranteed to be copyrighted. Hut 8.5 19:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Does that mean that Peanuts Wiki has infringed copyright? Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes.
      casualdejekyll 19:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Theoretically, fair use might apply to Peanutswiki's use but a) "might" is not "certainly" and b) Wikipedia is much stricter with fair use rules. In which article did you want to use it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not speak for the original editor; but I would guess Little Red-Haired Girl#Inspiration. Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American Party of Labor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It was mistakenly nominated for speedy deletion despite the page being recreated from scratch and accounted for the previous complaints. I ask for the deletion to be reverted until a consensus can be reached. As I have stated, I am more then happy to attentively listen to any criticism regarding my work, but I cannot improve it when my work is being deleted due to its name. Sincerely, Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It looks like there is a copy of this article at
  AFC reviewer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  We should judge the deleted page based on its own merit, not in regards to a draft existing. Judging the article with arguments unrelated to it is the root cause of the problem here; We should not repeat it. I ask for it to be temporarily undeleted so that I may continue to work on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Temporary_undeletion We should also consider the snowball clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Snowball_clause Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's temporarily undeleted, you won't be able to work on it; depending on which administrator performs the undeletion, it'll be either protected from editing for the duration of the review, or aggressively reverted if changed from the

  Cryptic 09:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I do not remember the changes made to the final draft. It is very demoralizing to have my article deleted on incorrect grounds, then be told I cannot recreate it due to a criticism I can correct.

  By reading the criteria the page was deleted upon; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4._Recreation_of_a_page_that_was_deleted_per_a_deletion_discussion,

  it becomes clear that the policy states that new articles which differ in substance from the deleted one, or one that has accounted for the original reason for its deletion, should not be deleted.

  This article demonstrates notability with multiple nontrivial independent sources, and I intend to add more. For that, I need to access the latest revision.

  I am very much okay with having someone revert the edits I make. That way, I can at least continue improving it and discuss it in talk if necessary; instead, the article was speedily deleted.

  Sincerely,

  Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting case. Definitely not a snowball because the decision to delete out of mainspace is very much defensible. You should use fewer references to the Red Phoenix magazine because it's not independent or neutral; use references that point instead to some other source. Personally I would want to see another properly independent and disinterested source that's written by an accredited academic or a professional journalist with checkable credentials before I felt it was ready for mainspace. For me, a red warning flag is that the organisation's membership is not stated, which makes me think it could well be a very small group. Do you have trade union affiliations, or whatever the US equivalent might be? Or are you funded purely by member donations?—S Marshall T/C 09:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We should use a 'proposed deletion' process before deleting this article.

  I have not invoked the snowball clause because this article is beyond criticism. Quite the contrary, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia and understand that no good work can come out of my time here if I don't get corrected.

  I invoked the snowball clause because the original reasons for the 'speedy delete' are objectively inappropriate.

  Once the article is back, I will take measures to address all the criticism you presented; Then, if you still think the article should be deleted, the normal process is the one that should be used.

  Defending an erroneous deletion of an article without allowing the author to address the criticism is counterproductive.

  We must judge an article based on its merit, not because it was mistakenly deleted. Evermore so, when the page is a work in progress whose improvement is being hindered due to an oversight.

  The APL does have trade union affiliations, for example, with the IWW.

  I do not understand the implication that I am affiliated with the APL. I live more than a continent away and don't even have an ICMLPO related organization where I live.

  Although the article already had many independent sources, I added more of them to the draft and removed multiple affiliated ones, as you requested.

  There are thirty-seven references in the current version of the article; five (13.5%) are from academic sources. Only seven are affiliated with the Party, which amounts to only 18.9% of citations.

  For comparison, the article on the Israeli parliament (The Knesset) has twenty-three references, out of which fourteen (60.8%) are directly affiliated to the Knesset itself, and only one (4.3%) is academic.

  The State Assembly of Estonia (Riigikogu) article, which has only six references, out of which 3 (50%) are affiliated to the institution, and one (16.6%) academic source, which is cited twice (33.3%).

  The article on the Democratic Party's Democratic National Convention (DNC) has forty-two references, seven (16.6%) are directly operated by the Party, and only six (14.2%) are academic.

  I can improve the article further when I am allowed to access it, have the public discuss it, and share their input in the appropriate fields.

  Sincerely,

  Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin who deleted this article, I'm sort of at a loss here. Andrei Zhdanov asked me to revert my CSD deletion and at the same time opened a Deletion Review. So, once this discussion was opened, I didn't feel I could simply revert my deletion decision until this deletion review can to a conclusion. Once an editor has opened a noticeboard discussion, it's not a matter of what I should do or not do but what the consensus of this discussion is. I can admit that I might have erred on the deletion (although I believe it was justified) but now that this discussion has begun, I defer to the editors who are participating here to come to a decision over what to do about this article. I'd recommend returning it to Draft space but there is already an existing draft that is pretty similar to what existed in main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The solution is simple; the mistaken deletion should be overturned.
  Any further discussion should take place on the article 'talk' page.
  There is no consensus in support of returning the page to Draftspace. Regardless, the deletion review is not the place to make such a decision. We are only here to judge the speedy deletion.

  "Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate."

  Thus, per my previous recommendation on your talk page, you should acknowledge the deletion as erroneous and request a speedy overturn.

  Sincerely,

  Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  By nominating here, you have already indicated your wish to overturn the deletion. Please don't add further bolded comments, which may be misread as there being more support for your request than there actually is. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The most recent deletion, a speedy deletion by Liz, must be overturned. The quoted speedy deletion criterion CSD:G4 did not apply as the deleted article was not substantially identical to the version deleted at AFD in December. As such, deletion process has not been correctly followed and we must put that right.
  Regardless of where we go from here, however, I would urge
  WP:TEXTWALL territory and it is a tendency of Wikipedians, rightly or wrongly, to dismiss or disregard prolix arguments regardless of their merits. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - This discussion is a
  train wreck, largely because there seem to be two trains, one in draft space, and one that was speedily deleted, whose deletion is being appealed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question - What would the effect be if I were to Accept the draft version into article space? Would it be possible to resolve any differences between that version and the invisible version by normal editing? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Accepting the draft seems like the least confused way to do this, unless it is considered procedurally important to maintain the trainwreck (perhaps to do a post-wreck analysis on the trains). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent suggestion.
  It will have identical effects to an overturn while combining the trains to solve the trainwreck.
  To avoid the loss of my work, it is also best to do a history merge so I can incorporate the deleted additions.
  Sincerely,
  Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have accepted the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Close without action – the draft has been accepted, so any further discussion about whether the G4 was correct is academic. The article can be renominated at AfD if anyone feels it to be necessary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• We can indeed close it without action
  iff the terms of use have been complied with. A sysop has to check that because they can view the deleted revisions. They need to work out whether the userspace version was a copy-paste of the now-deleted mainspace version, and if it was then they need to check whether the contributors were the same. It's possible that there might need to be a history merge to preserve attribution.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Regarding S Marshall's point, it looks like the mainspace version deleted in the AfD is quite different from the current mainspace text. The version deleted as G4 by Liz is identical to the current mainspace version but both were written by the same editor. So I don't think a history merge would be needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

Closed on the basis of no sources when there are sources. The film has many spellings including Amudhae, Amudhe, and Amuthe. There are sources about production here, here, here, here, here, and here. There is a Sify preview here, a Sify review here, The Hindu review here, a review by New Indian Express critic Malini Mannath here, and a review by film portal BB Thots here. Would like to recreate the page preferably without the 'y' because no sources use it and the title credits say Amudea here. Amudhae is the most common spelling. DareshMohan (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Re-Creation – Is the filer appealing the closure, or requesting to create a new version? There is nothing wrong with the closure, but a new version can be created in draft space for review, or in article space (after six months) at risk of a new AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation: In the draft space so the references can be cleaned up before moving to the main space. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation: per newly found sources. The outcome of closure was correct but these sources weren't considered in the discussion. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hong Kong (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The template redirect was deleted and then protected from creation for repeatedly created with the reason being said as "redundant". However, having Template:City_Name for a city's navbox would be consistent with navbox template of other cities, such as those in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Capital_city_templates. The original deletion discussion seems to be treating Hong Kong as a country and forgot Hong Kong is also a city and is thus within the scope of WikiProject Cities, hence following the conventional template naming of other city navbox is useful, contrary to what the original discussion claim. C933103 (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The deletion discussions are here and here. In the redirect discussion, this was a redirect to either Template:Districts of Hong Kong and later a redirect to Template:Hong Kong topics. It was subsequently resurrected as a "namespace dependent frontend" for either {{Hong Kong topics}} or {{WikiProject Hong Kong}} which was seen as confusing. In the various deletion discussions it was mentioned that {{Hong Kong}} had been confused with {{HKG}}, {{Hong Kong topics}}, and {{WikiProject Hong Kong}}. I don't think that has changed, nor how this is any different from {{Macau}} which was confused with {{MAC}}, {{Macau topics}}, ... I don't have a really strong opinion here, but I don't see the problem with using {{Hong Kong topics}} instead to avoid confusion. If keeping this deleted solves a problem and doesn't create any significant new problems, then not restoring it seems like the best solution to me. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The TfD discussion was unanimous. No procedural error is alleged, and DRV is not a forum to re-argue a deletion discussion on the merits, as the appellant attempts to do. Sandstein 12:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laodice (wife of Mithridates II of Commagene) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed as "redirect and merge" despite nobody in the discussion finding evidence that this person ever existed. There was never any "Laodice" who married

I have asked the closing administrator for an explanation. It was established (without dispute) in the discussion that no Laodice is known to have been married to Mithridates II of Commagene, and so I cannot see what possible good can come from redirecting Laodice (wife of Mithridates II of Commagene) to Mithridates II of Commagene. Surtsicna (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's baffling that he reached the exact opposite conclusion: from my reading of the AfD everybody seemed to assume that she was indeed the king's wife.

Avilich (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I am... surprised... that anyone can interpret my comments in that AfD as "assum[ing] that she was indeed the king's wife". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete. Nobody even attempted to refute the nominator's assertion that the subject doesn't exist. The fact the person doesn't exist means it's not an appropriate search term and any merge would be a very bad idea, and
  core policy places the burden of proof on those who claim the subject does exist. I don't see how you can possibly read that AfD and conclude that everyone thought the subject existed and was the king's wife. The article only cited this source, which does not support the assertion that the subject existed: The first family member named in the inscription is Mithridates, son of Antiochos (line 4)... The names of Mithridates and his father recall those of king Mithradates II and of his father Antiochus I. Furthermore, Mithridates’ wife Laodike (line 6) carried the same name as the mother of king Antiochus I. This only says that Laodike/Laodice was married to someone called Mithridates, but that Mithridates wasn't king Mithradates II. Hut 8.5 12:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I attempted it. But as I reported I kept turning up a different person instead. Uncle G (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I meant more that nobody tried to argue in the AfD that the nominator was wrong and the subject does in fact exist. Hut 8.5 12:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and start a talk page discussion. There is clear consensus to not have a standalone article. There is an ongoing dispute about whether the Mithridates of the inscription is in fact Mithridates II of Commagene. Relisting would have been fine, although I'd think that an immediate RFD listing might be a permissible place to seek further consensus on the second issue. Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing dispute about whether the Mithridates of the inscription is in fact Mithridates II of Commagene Uh, no there isn't? Point me out a single person who argued that he is, or there isn't.

Avilich (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Jclemens, did you mean a scholarly dispute? Because I certainly do not see one among editors. Either way, please point it out for us. Surtsicna (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment: I was not notified of this discussion. In my view, the AfD resulted in consensus against keeping the article, but not in sufficiently clear consensus to delete it. If it cannot be verified that there was a wife of this king with this name,
  WP:RFD would be the next appropriate step. Sandstein 10:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That is really not how it should work. A discussion has already found that the existence of the subject cannot be verified. Her (non-)existence was the very subject of the AfD. Not a single user in the deletion discussion argued (let alone proved) that she did exist. I do not see how this should not have resulted in the deletion of the article under

WP:DEL-REASON #6 and #7. Surtsicna (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• (
  clear that the burden of proof is on those seeking to add or retain content. If the subject's existence hasn't been verified then Delete is the only valid closure. Hut 8.5 11:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• In the AfD, Peterkingiron argued for merging because "we know next to nothing of her, only a name". That's an argument for her existence, and not a baseless one: the article cited a paper by de:Michael Alexander Speidel, a professor of classical studies, who makes reference to "Mithridates' wife Laodike" in an altar inscription on p. 9. It's only on a closer reading of the source that I agree with the AfD nominator that the source makes clear that the Mithridates mentioned in the source is not the king and therefore the Laodike mentioned was not the king's wife. As an editor, I agree that this means that deletion would have been the correct outcome, but that's an editorial assessment arrived at after reading the sources. Doing that and making editorial decisions based on it is the AfD participants' job, not the closer's. On this basis I still can't say that the AfD established consensus for deletion, even though that's only because the "keep" and "merge" participants didn't read the source. Sandstein 22:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not a baseless one But it is baseless, since he based it on nothing (on a misunderstanding rather than an actual reading of the source) and was explicitly corrected by

Avilich (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand that the outcome in this case is unsatisfactory, but I must reject on procedural grounds an obligation for the closing admin to read and analyze the sources of an article for themselves and to determine who among the AfD participants has read and understood the sources correctly. This would be a massive amount of work, and it would also oblige the closer to cast a supervote - to determine the AfD on the merits for themselves. That's not a closer's job; they are there to determine rough consensus in a discussion. Thats why I as closer limit myself to evaluating the prima facie plausibility of AfD opinions, without necessarily reading either the article or its sources. This will sometimes lead to the wrong outcome, as it did here, but in this case a new discussion can always be had at XfD. Sandstein 09:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all true, but it's completely irrelevant to this AFD because you didn't have to do it. No editor opining for an outcome other than deletion of this article addressed the nominator's arguments in the least. And no editor suggested a merge or redirect or anything of the sort to

Cryptic 11:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

No, only reading the actual source made clear that Peterkingiron was mistaken in their "merge" proposal, but as I said it can't be the job of the closer to engage in source analysis. For the reasons mentioned above, I don't think I would be procedurally correct in reverting my closure: deleting this mistakenly created article is an editorial decision, not an administrative one. But I've now done what the DRV filer should have done to save us time: submitted the redirect to a forum authorized of making such editorial decisions, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_21#Laodice_(wife_of_Mithridates_II_of_Commagene). Sandstein 17:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, only reading the actual source made clear that Peterkingiron was mistaken Anyone who reads the discussion can see that is flat out untrue, not only from Peterkingiron's failure to meet

Avilich (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, others pointed out Peterkingiron's mistake in the discussion, but, as a closer, there was no way for me to determine whether what they said was a mistake was indeed a mistake without reading the source at issue - which, again, is not a closer's job. Avilich, you are coming across as aggressive and uncollegial both in the AfD, on my talk page and here, which are not good qualities in a Wikipedian. I advise you to drop the stick and accept that you will not always get what you want in AfDs - and that your chances to do so will increase if you follow process (in this case, a follow-up RfD) and try to convince colleagues rather than to bludgeon them. Sandstein 20:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. Lawrey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The close did not reflect the clear majority (four keep votes against one delete vote and the nomination itself) and the participants in the discussion disagreed with Sandstein's interpretation of NSPORTS.

• Support close The sports SNG explicitly says it abides by GNG and subjects must pass GNG. No one prevented any significant coverage that would add towards passing GNG. Plus the keep votes ignored the reality that the "silver medal" was one in a 2 team competition. When silver medal means you come in last place it should not be treated as a medal demonstrating winning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:N says it's either GNG or SNG, but the SNG (NSPORTS) also says that GNG must be met. A valid case for keeping would have had included rebuttals to the nominator's original statement that the sourcing is insufficient to establish notability.
  Avilich (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse (involved). Sandstein's close is based on the wording of NSPORTS; it is appropriate to give less weight to arguments that are not aligned with policy. BilledMammal (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (involved) I agree with NemesisAT, although I think that a relisting would probably have resolved the issue. Given what NemesisAT has highlighted (greened?) and emphasized, I do not believe that its safe to say that NSPORTS is as clear as the delete votes make it seem, and that keep votes can therefore automatically be weighed less. Canadian Paul 22:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The arguments were weighed appropriately by the admin. The SNG for
  WP:NSPORTS requires GNG to be met as well. The Keep voters ignored that and did not present arguments to actually support notability. Hence, their votes were ignored, as is appropriate. Silverseren^C 23:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn It's up to the !voters to apply guidelines, and the closer to read consensus, not to interpret guidelines themselves. The !voters chose to apply the
  WP:DGFA guideline allows the close to override !votes to comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable, none of those policies were raised as an issue here.—Bagumba (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The article had presumably existed for a while already, and so 'eventually' was reasonably interpreted to mean now. Even if it was a recent creation, this dubious interpretation of 'eventually' cannot override

Avilich (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

No, !voters are competent enough to write Delete if they meant now.—Bagumba (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's that supposed to mean, and why does it even matter? The article had existed for a while and so "eventually" no sources were found -- that is all that matters. Just how long does "eventually" need to be by your standards until the "keep per NSPORTS" spam becomes insufficient an argument in its own right?

Avilich (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It really doesn't matter what I think eventually means. I didn't !vote at the AfD and DRV is to assess the points already in the AfD, not for any of to discuss the specific merits (or not) of that page.—Bagumba (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If what you think 'eventually' means doesn't matter, then your opinion that the outcome should be overturned because the guidelines say that sources may 'eventually' be found also doesn't matter.

Avilich (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Even if you thought it was enough time, but the guideline left eventually open-ended, it's up to the AfD !voters to answer "when", not anyone in a DRV.—Bagumba (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except they did not answer "when", so the default rule here is

Avilich (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

"Keep" means do not delete now per SNG (and per WP:N).—Bagumba (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You keep mentioning WP:N, so I presume you noticed it says "notability requires verifiable evidence". If you wish to argue properly, you need to say that keep voters should have shown verifiable evidence that the topic may "eventually" meet GNG. If you can't understand that your logic allows groups of people, as long as they have a numerical majority, to keep articles indefinitely without having to give a single source (in violation of

Avilich (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

...you'd no doubt still be saying that "the article must not be deleted now": I didn't !vote in the AfD, and never said that. I'm sorry if you don't understand that a DRV is not an AfD do over. We'll agree to disagree. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was obviously referring to voting on DRV (in the sense of endorsing arguments of the like when they are made in an AfD), not AfD.

Avilich (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn or relist With a 4-2 vote count, with 2 keeps making some reference to the NSPORTS/GNG argument, and all voters citing or alluding to some policy or guideline, I don't see a case to use closer discretion here. If this many editors are consistently making such "fatal" errors with NSPORTS, it probably means the guideline needs to be fixed. But the closer shouldn't be trying to fix this in local consensus, rather fix it in an RfC first. Jumpytoo Talk 05:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as yet another Sandstein Supervote. Ignores
  WP:NHC. Inexplicably declines to relist. I could go into more on any of these, but it seems I do at least every month on one of these deletions. We have an admin here who is neither following policy nor accepting gentle correction when his failings are pointed out. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse It's clear from NSPORTS that GNG should generally be satisfied. In this case "common sense" says that a man, whose name we don't even know, is not notable, especially since it seems no significant coverage has been found. Nigej (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Clear to you, perhaps. But this is a DRV, not AfD: Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question (Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting in a deletion review). The closer could have instead !voted that way to help make it clearer, and left it for someone else to close.—Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I would have supported deleting/redirecting this, but the close doesn't reflect the discussion. NSPORTS is an SNG and arguments based on the subject passing an SNG are reasonable and shouldn't be discounted. There are various proposals open to remove or gut NSPORTS but it's not appropriate to try to implement those through individual AfD closures. Hut 8.5 08:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Hut, and Jclemens. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. NSPORTS is explicitly subordinate to the GNG. Many years ago, the community had a discussion that was pretty closely balanced but, seen in exactly the right light with a following wind, just about shaded into consensus to promote NSPORTS to guideline. A central part of the negotiations to promote it was the rule that NSPORTS shouldn't overrule the GNG, without which NSPORTS wouldn't be a guideline at all. I very much approve of any decision that enforces this.—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  NSPORTS is explicitly subordinate to the GNG: Can you provide the specific excerpt? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, with pleasure: The closing summary at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4 § RfC: Promote Notability (sports) to a guideline, confirmed by the community at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 8 § Applicable policies and guidelines, Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 9 § Relation to GNG (again), and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 16 § Second sentence. I realize that awareness of this among sports-focused editors is very low.—S Marshall T/C 16:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You linked a lot of past talk page discussions. However, we can only go off what is the current implementation in the actual text of the NSPORTS guideline. I see nothing in the guideline about NSPORTS being "explicitly subordinate to the GNG".—Bagumba (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think discussions from 2010, 2011, and 2013 shoydtake precedence over

  talk) 17:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I agree that those discussions are old. If the community has changed its mind, then please could you link the discussion in which it did so? I want to say that that's a very dramatic change, because if NSPORTS could actually overrule the GNG, then the practical effect of that would be to shift the burden of proof onto the delete side. In other words, the only way you could ever delete an article about a sportsperson would be to somehow prove that significant coverage doesn't exist. That's an extraordinary burden of proof: how could anyone ever meet that? It makes sportspeople articles practically undeletable. And where the sportsperson is still alive, how do you think that interacts with our rules on biographies of living people where we have to remove unsourced or undersourced information on sight?—S Marshall T/C 23:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nowhere does it say GNG is "overruled". NSPORTS works in conjunction with GNG. From one of the quotes listed above (at my 04:56, 17 February post), per

  WP:NSPORTS#Q1 (emphasis added):

  The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it.

  —Bagumba (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I note you don't link a discussion where the community agreed that NSPORTS can be an alternative to the GNG. May I take it that you concede that point? I'm also confused by the idea that NSPORTS stops an article being "quickly" deleted. In practice it is used to stop an article being deleted after a full seven-day AFD during which, I would have thought, the keep side might be expected to turn up a source or two.—S Marshall T/C 00:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See

  WP:N says either GNG or an SNG provides a presumption of notability. NSPORTS says it can be used to stave off deletion, but GNG should eventually be met. If AfD participants say keep per NSPORTS, "eventually" is decided to not mean now. The assumption is that (most in) the community are learned enough to not game the system. So we AGF, or otherwise change the guidelines. I dont accept closers enacting their own set of rules that dont reflect existing guideline nor what the participants discussed.—Bagumba (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Well, it really does seem to me that this means that if I nominate a sports biography for deletion, you can say, "No, sources probably exist and someone will produce them eventually," and if you do say that, then the article can't be deleted. This seems very lax indeed, and hard to reconcile with our rigorous rules about undersourced biographies; although it does explain why nearly half the biographies on Wikipedia are about sportspeople.—S Marshall T/C 16:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My one !vote wouldnt have that much weight. We operate on consensus, and others would have to assess the situation similarly, unless the closer decided to supervote based on my minority position.—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We operate on rough consensus, in which the closer gives people's !votes weight according to their basis in policy. Policies represent the wider community consensus and it's the closer's job to see that they're followed. In the case of this debate, I feel the !votes that are wrongly grounded in the mistaken idea that NSPORTS can overrule the GNG are actually counter-consensus and therefore deserve little weight. I feel that community's intent, underlying our content policies and expresed most clearly in WP:V, is that when someone makes a reasonable complaint of poor sourcing, the only acceptable answer should be to add new and better sources, and when as in this case the sources don't appear, the disputed content should be deleted.—S Marshall T/C 18:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The top of Wikipedia:Notability reads (empasis added):

  A topic is presumed to merit an article if...It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...

  I don't understand the frequent accusation, not just from you, that GNG is being nefariously "overruled". The guideline left GNG/SNG decided on a per-case basis. If a guideline is open to interpretation, the closer should 1) leave it to the !voters' to interpret 2) consider !voting instead of closing 3) get consensus to clarify the guideline pages, is needed.—Bagumba (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, but the whole point is that the criteria of NSPORTS is ultimately the GNG. So, let me translate that: it's either the GNG or, ultimately, the GNG. That's what the argument is. Dege31 (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In cases where something that doesn't pass the GNG is nevertheless deemed "notable", I think it's entirely fair to say that the GNG is being overruled. At some point in the past few years someone has edited WP:N to say that SNGs are coequal with the GNG. I view that edit as incredibly poorly thought through and I am currently researching to work out who did that, when they did it, and whether there was a proper discussion advertised on WP:CENT to support their change.—S Marshall T/C 13:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't the exact diff where the wording was introduced, but this diff from 2007 indicates that a subject has presumed notability if it meets either the general notability guideline or an SNG.

  talk) 14:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That pre-dates NSPORTS. Three years later, the discussion in which NSPORTS was promoted to guideline clearly envisages that it's subordinate to the GNG. The most recent consensus I've been able to find about this is here, where we find There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. [and] There is a general unhappiness with the permissiveness of some NSPORTS criteria, but no consensus in this discussion on any specific changes to any of them. I agree with the closers' analysis of that debate and am sad that the community can't converge on a fix.—S Marshall T/C 16:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Frankly after skimming that conversation I'm not seeing the "clear consensus" quoted above but I don't see any point arguing with youa about it. If the consensus was so clear, why was

  talk) 17:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Well, because there wasn't consensus for any specific change. As I said, in my view the situation is that the community knows NSPORTS is out of alignment with the rest of the encyclopaedia but can't converge on a fix.—S Marshall T/C 17:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So as the guidelines haven't yet been changed and SNGs still have equal weight to GNG, the closing statement was incorrect (or personal opinion) and the result should have been "keep" given there were four "keep" votes in keeping with our

  talk) 17:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The community doesn't think SNGS have equal weight to the GNG at all, though. Someone's stuck that in the text of WP:N but, as demonstrated in the five or six discussions I've linked so far in this debate, that wording doesn't reflect the community's real view. The "delete" close was correct because the "keep" side just !voted when what they needed to do was produce sources.—S Marshall T/C 18:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Sigcov was established by any of the editors. scope_creep^Talk 14:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question (the same for below) was his first name ever found? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Arthur?[5]—Bagumba (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep, per NemesisAT and Bagumba. Sandstein's close seems to be a supervote (just like he did at Pete Vainowski). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn or relist Even if we completely disregard all the keep !votes (which we shouldn't), a single delete !vote plus the nominator amounts to a
  WP:SOFTDELETE at most. As multiple people have indicated a preference to restore the article, do so, and potentially relist at AfD to try to get more participation and build a better consensus. Smartyllama (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn to Relist I simply don't see consensus here. Their was sole Delete response to the AFD. The close appears to be a super vote, that cherry picks NSPORT, ignoring the section Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb. Long-standing consensus in the project is that players from a century ago are going to be hard to find sources for. If there were to be supervotes, then I'm not sure why redirect to Rugby union at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Great Britain (Cornwall) wouldn't be a more suitable outcome. Nfitz (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No rebuttal was provided to counter to the GNG failure argument, which is paramount when NSPORTS pass is challenged at AFD, so the pure SNG-based keep arguments were rightly given very little weight. Successive discussions and RFCs have long established that NSPORTS does not supersede GNG, but it's evident that many editors will continue to ignore this standing consensus. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. In my experience sports editors do have access to some of the best sports bio sources and will post them at AfD and add them to the article if coverage can be found, so if they looked and didn't find any then it's safe to say that GNG coverage can no longer be presumed. I'm not sure what type of offline/hard-to-find sources would exist for this since newspapers from that era are widely digitized. –dlthewave ☎ 21:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is relisted, it may be best to wait until the NSPORTS omnibus RfC is closed since it aims to clear up some of the confusing and conflicting guidelines which led to this DRV in the first place. –dlthewave ☎ 17:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, AfD is not a vote. While closing against a seeming majority sentiment certainly requires a strong reason to do so, it is not forbidden. In this instance, the AfD rationale challenged meeting GNG, not something else, and the "Keep" arguments failed to even much address, let alone refute, that claim. "Meets an SNG" is not relevant when that wasn't even what was challenged to start with, and of course closers are expected to discount weak and irrelevant arguments. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Per

  talk) 23:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  No, it is not. Passing an SNG is guidance for when GNG will likely be met, not a substitute for actually meeting it. While passing an SNG gives a presumption that GNG is passed, that is a

  rebuttable presumption if an editor makes a genuinely good effort to find GNG-quality sources and comes up empty. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  NSPORTS already says: ...meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept; it's a given that it's rebuttable. I'd expect more than a minority !voting to delete when an SNG is verifiably met. There's a growing lack of AGF in applying an SNG. If an SNG is unreliable, fix it or get it delisted. There's something wrong if the closer is interprettng guidelines and not just !voting themselves.—Bagumba (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it is.

  talk) 09:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse- AfD is not a vote, and arguments that don't address the nomination are often about as useful as "Keep- I like pie". Reyk _YO! 22:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I accidentally put some of my !vote reasoning for this DRV in the other DRV instead: And the claim that WP:N somehow elevates an individual sport-specific guideline above that of NSPORT itself and therefore abolishes the need for GNG is absolutely specious. JoelleJay (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Whilst SNG was met and is a reasonable argument to keep (a rebuttable presumption), if so little is known about a person that we cannot even discern his first name, I have grave doubts that we could consider him notable. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It was mentioned in the AfD that the name was updated. It appears to be Arthur.[6]—Bagumba (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  and his surname was actually Lawry. Rather embarrassingly we have the wrong man mentioned here 1907–08 Rugby Union County Championship. It was Arthur who played in this match and not Dr Lawry. See [7] which clearly shows Arthur in kit (seated left) and Dr Lawry not. Nigej (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn or relist Closing as delete when four of five participants presented valid keep arguments is a supervote. It's clear what side of the fence Sandstein is on in the interminable GNG vs SNG debates, but if he wishes to express his interpretation of the notability guidelines he should do so as a participant, not close the discussion.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Note that a !keep editor was canvassed to the AFD. BilledMammal (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Note canvassing to this DRV by an AfD !deleter here.—Bagumba (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the village pump, not a partisan editors talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The message however was not neutral at all.

    talk) 08:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    • • Yes that's problematic and procedurally irregular. Could the closer of this DRV please consider having a word with that editor?—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse None of the keep arguments address or even attempt to address the reason for deletion, instead going off on the usual fallacy of automatic notability, which is at odds with the community guidelines as written (which
  WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to the contrary by some sports editors. The closer correctly disregarded the invalid arguments. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  talk) 16:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That is very clearly

  WP:NSPORTS also says, and quite friggin obviously too, that meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. You selectively ignoring this is not my problem, but if it continues it might very well become one for the wider community to address. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  If reading and following two separate guidelines that are consistent with each other is wikilawering, why bother with guidelines at all? If you disagree with them, request that they're changed but until them I'm following the guidelines.

  talk) 16:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You are asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express; and doing so by applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives (or, in a less verbose form, cherry-picking). The underlying principle these policies express is that there should be sufficient sources from which to write an encyclopedic article. The guidelines as written are indeed consistent with each other, in that none overrides the need for evidence of notability (

  WP:NRVE) or for sources being shown to exist when challenged (NSPORTS FAQ no. 2). You going for a narrow reading of WP:N, when NSPORTS explicitly states it does not override the requirement for GNG (a view which was affirmed in a 2017 RfC), is indeed rules-lawyering of the worst kind. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Disagree. I haven't cherry picked sentences from deep in the guidelines, I'm referring to the lead section of both. After accusing me of cherry picking, you've cherry picked two sections from within the guidelines! I don't see any point in arguing further, I stand by my opinion that the keep votes are in keeping with our guidelines and shouldn't be discounted.

  talk) 16:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'm not quoting anything particularly obscure (NRVE has a big header for itself, so hard to miss; and the quote is from the lead of NSPORTS). On top of that, the very first sentence of NSPORTS is This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. [emphasis mine]. If a guideline is used to "help evaluate" whether something "is likely to meet the general notability guideline", it's clear that any interpretation of it which comes to an opposite conclusion (that GNG is not required) is either A) wrong or B) willfully wrong. Multiple editors having the same misunderstanding does not mean that

  WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can override this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  (edit conflict) You are correct in that the keep votes should not be discounted, however they have rightly been given very little weight here because they did not address the lack of secondary, significant coverage, and instead just kept repeating "meets SNG" without ever presenting a single instance of significant coverage or even a claim that any might exist. Also, as has been pointed out, successive RFCs (in addition to countless other discussions, including AFDs) have reaffirmed the community's view on the relative standing of NSPORT with respect to GNG; i.e. GNG must be met (eventually), which means (and includes) when challenged at AFD. As stated, keep !voters failed to even attempt to address that here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn or Relist - The policies and guidelines are sufficiently complicated and confused that we should
  ignore the existing rules and apply what the rules ought to be, which is that either GNG or an SNG should apply. The SNG does apply. Anyway, when the rules are in doubt, let the consensus rule. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  This goes directly against

  WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The rules are not in doubt, and they are not confusing for anyone who actually tries to understand them. That there is a vocal subgroup of sports editors who happen to !vote in nearly every athlete AfD but refuse to acknowledge longstanding broad consensus is immaterial to what that wider consensus is. The applicable SNG is NSPORT, which states in at least 5 places that GNG-level coverage is required to merit an article and must eventually be demonstrated. Selectively ignoring those sections of the SNG contravenes WP:N. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The real

  WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is this mistaken notion that an SNG can be dependent on the GNG. All other SNGs are independent of the GNG, and yet people keep trying to argue that stricter SNGs can exist--NSPORT, PROF, NORG--when there exist a large number of Wikipedia editors who reject the notion as simply a category error: to the extent that an SNG says the GNG AND SNG must both be met, that text is against longstanding Wikipedia consensus and disregarded. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Jclemens: Have you ever read NSPORTS? The very first sentence defines what it is. It is not an alternative to GNG. It is not an inclusion criteria by itself. It is a guideline used to help evaluate whether a topic is likely to meet GNG. Says so right off the bat. People of course can be excused for not quite having the same opinion as the written guidelines, but the guideline documents the existing commnunity consensus, and individual editors coming to a conclusion that somehow GNG can be ignored is very hard to justify as anything but motivated reasoning based on a few select snippets, and the best description of it is indeed it being a LOCALCONSENSUS which is at odds with that of the wider community. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If NSPORTS is an SNG and claims that GNG must be met, then it is at odds with other SNGs and the longstanding understanding that notability is GNG or SNG. No SNG can say "must meet the GNG and..." and at the same time be consistent with notability as developed over decades. A LOCALCONSENSUS to try and make NSPORT some sort of a zombified SNG that can't be met without the GNG already being met is aberrant, rather than normative. Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens: why would being at odds render an SNG invalid? We have countless exceptions to policy - SNGs are, by their very nature, exemptions to the default PAGs and there is zero obligation for any PAG to match the general trend of rules. In the D&D world, you'd call it the "specific rule trumps general rule" use-case. Should we also prohibit NPROF, because its notability methodology is such an outlier? NSPORTS is not a local consensus, because it was formed as a full PAG by the broader community. This DRV could claim to override NSPORTS and that would be a LOCALCONSENSUS. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not the SNG, just the clauses that said that the SNG was dependent on the GNG being met. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (EC) @Jclemens Have you ever read "all the other SNGs"?

Fully half of all SNGs have criteria that are at least ultimately identical to or presume GNG. Several explicitly state they predict GNG, including NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I think you've made my point for me--that various efforts have been made to erase the alternative nature of SNGs--but I'm guessing that's not what you intended. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: you'll have to talk us through the reasoning here. Firstly you're saying the "alternative nature" as if it is a global, all-cases, standard, that specifically prohibits the possibility of the SNG itself using GNG as a standard. Secondly, even if there had been various efforts to erase it (and that's not what I believe is happening, as it was clearly never intended for SNGs to be outright prohibited from using GNG), that still wouldn't be an issue because the SNGs are discussed at a community wide level. They'd be perfectly entitled to narrow down a previously broader scope. That's what community decision-making can do. If you want to change either individual SNGs to be broader, or even re-write WP:N to specifically prohibit SNGs calling back to GNG, that's fine, but you need to get the community to actively sign on to it. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, I don't have to justify my reasoning why I find the current wording uncompelling. I did anyways, but the fact that you don't find my reasoning compelling isn't an issue I find demands my further time and repetition. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Sports SNG do not override GNG and the subject failed GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. None of the keep !votes addressed that fact. Alvaldi (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to relist If you are closing against numeric consensus of reasonable people citing reasonable guidelines and there has been no relist before, it's best to relist. I suspect this should be deleted (or more likely redirected), but not with that discussion. Hobit (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E. J. Jones (rugby union) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer cited their own close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Lawrey as the reason for this delete close. As that close is now under review, I feel this one should be nominated to. Overturn to no consensus

• Support close SNGs cannot overcome GNG, and no significant coverage was offered.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is incorrect.

  talk) 22:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • The sports SNGs specifically require a passing of GNG, and this has been endorsed through RfC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved). Sandstein's close is based on the wording of NSPORTS; it is appropriate to give less weight to arguments that are not aligned with policy. BilledMammal (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NSPORTS isn't policy. Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Policy is very clear about what policies will prompt discounting of non-compliant opinions. There's not a single notability guideline listed there. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (involved, copying my rationale from other discussion) I agree with NemesisAT, although I think that a relisting would probably have resolved the issue. Given what NemesisAT has highlighted (greened?) and emphasized, I do not believe that its safe to say that NSPORTS is as clear as the delete votes make it seem, and that keep votes can therefore automatically be weighed less. Canadian Paul 22:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse As with above, the GNG is required to be met for sports player articles. Their SNG specifically states this. If Keep voters don't actually advance an argument showcasing support for GNG on the article subject, then their votes are appropriately summarily ignored when determining consensus. Silverseren^C 23:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist While unlike with the other DRV, a 3-3 count can be subject to closer discretion. But 2 of the keep votes made some reference the GNG/NSPORTS argument, and I feel it is better to relist AfD's that are evenly split. Perhaps the additional time could of found sources or determined there were no sources to meet GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 05:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for all the same reasons as A. Lawrey's DRV. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist It's up to the !voters to apply guidelines, and the closer to read consensus, not to interpret guidelines themselves. Some !voters chose to apply the
  WP:DGFA guideline allows the close to override !votes to comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable, none of those policies were raised as an issue here.—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Same issue as in the A. Lawrey case. Absolutely no evidence has been produced that this man is notable. Nigej (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per the above comments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per my remarks in the DRV immediately above this one.—S Marshall T/C 10:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Relist I simply don't see consensus here. The close appears to be a super vote, that cherry picks NSPORT, ignoring the section Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb. Long-standing consensus in the project is that players from a century ago are going to be hard to find sources for. If there were to be supervotes, then I'm not sure why redirect to Rugby union at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Great Britain (Cornwall) wouldn't be a more suitable outcome. Nfitz (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No rebuttal was provided to counter to the GNG failure argument, which is paramount when NSPORTS pass is challenged at AFD, so the pure SNG-based keep arguments were rightly given very little weight. Successive discussions and RFCs have long established that NSPORTS does not supersede GNG, but it's evident that many editors will continue to ignore this standing consensus. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  talk) 17:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @

  NemesisAT, this argument completely fails as there is no statement or even implication that an SNG cannot itself require the equivalent of GNG. Passing NSPORT means a subject has a rebuttable presumption of meeting GNG based on meeting a sport-specific subcriterion, it does not mean a subject meets WP:N automatically by virtue of meeting a subcriterion regardless of GNG existing. That is the end of the story. JoelleJay (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse. Per Wjemather. And the claim that WP:N somehow elevates an individual sport-specific guideline above that of NSPORT itself and therefore abolishes the need for GNG is absolutely specious. JoelleJay (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. As above, discussions of an SNG are not relevant when the nomination challenges whether the subject meets the GNG. Closers are expected to disregard weak and irrelevant arguments; AfD is not a vote. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  talk) 23:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

And the SNG is NSPORT, which mandates GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can a guideline mandate anything? You are looking at this through a black and white lens, when you need to be using one with shades of grey. In fact, NSPORT says that articles SHOULD meet GNG. Not must. Yes, there's contradictory stuff in the guidelines - all the more reason to seek out consensus. Nfitz (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know what Q5 says by now. There is no logical reading of WP:N or NSPORT that suddenly elevates an individual SSG to SNG status.

What "eventually" means is up to editors to defend, and the closer used their discretion to evaluate the strength of their arguments. When there are no arguments along these lines the closer is within their rights to discount those !votes. JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no logical reading of WP:N or NSPORT that suddenly elevates an individual SSG to SNG status: "Suddenly elevates"? NSPORT is an SNG. Full stop. See

WP:N explictly refers to.—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, NSPORT is the SNG. Not NFOOTY or NCRIC or NRUGBY. So what NSPORT requires of its SSGs is what would be considered by the "or" sentence in WP:N. We've been over this so many times... JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- AfD is not a vote. Nominator and at least one participant pointed out that the sources to sustain an article aren't there; in response, replies of "there must be sources out there somewhere" and "SNG says we don't need sources" are about as useful as a chocolate teapot. Reyk _YO! 22:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see either of your quotes, User:Reyk in the AFD - or anything close. Can you please edit review your Endorse as it seems to be based on fallacies. Nfitz (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope. People treat the SNGs as though they're an exemption from the usual substantial sourcing requirements and that mindset was pretty obvious from the AfD. The closer did right not to give those arguments much weight. Reyk _YO! 01:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There are literally no requirements - it's guidance. Though even if it were, they are sourced - this isn't a situation where it appears to be a hoax or something. Meanwhile, we are judging the close - and there simply isn't consensus to delete. The close was premature - and I wouldn't be surprised if the consensus would end up being another option, such as redirect. Nfitz (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Whilst meeting one of the NSPORTS guidelines is sufficient to establish a presumption of notability, when so little is known about a person that we cannot even say his first name, the presumption is rebutted. Stifle (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  cannot even say his first name: That wasn't even an argument in the AfD. Some people do go by their initials. In any event, it's Edwin Jacob Jones.[8]—Bagumba (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Note that a !keep editor was canvassed to the AFD. BilledMammal (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "A !keep editor"? They haven't participated in this discussion!

  talk) 08:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Yes, they did. BilledMammal (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Note canvassing to this DRV by an AfD !deleter here.—Bagumba (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the village pump, not a partisan editors talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It was a non-neutral mention. The venue was fine.—Bagumba (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse In this case the editors were evenly divided, but strength of argument (the necessity for
  WP:NOTAVOTE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn to Keep, or Relist - Could these two appeals have been bundled? I know that isn't usually done here. The same arguments apply. The rough consensus can govern when the rules are confused. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The difference is that the first is against a more obvious numerical majority. Here the !votes are evenly divided. Closers favouring the side with strength of argument when !votes are numerically evenly divided is entirely routine and frankly a waste of everyone's time to re-argue it. The other case (favouring a clear minority if they have strength of argument) is a bit rarer, but is still in line with the expectations of

  WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to the contrary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  And when you ignore the canvassed vote, !votes here are in favour of deletion. BilledMammal (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse NSPORTS does not supersede GNG and the subject failed GNG due to lack of significant coverage. None of the keep !votes addressed that fact. Alvaldi (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn to relist per the argument I made in the above DRV. And a
  WP:TROUT to the closer. If you are going to make a close you know (or should know) would be contested and yet you are sure you are making the right close, let someone else close the next one of the same type. Otherwise you are indicating a pretty strong fear that some other admin will reach the opposite conclusion. Not a good look IMO. Hobit (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - while it would not be impossible to argue that olympic medals would warrant an IAR keep, that doesn't appear to have been utilised. Instead !vote reasoning was premised off the now recurring NSPORTS/GNG split, where the policy text is unambiguous. In response to @Bagumba:'s citing of WP:N, I'd point out that the key bit here is that the SNG is not satisfied because it itself requires GNG to ultimately be met (in effect, each path here leads to GNG). That's not always the case - a village could pass GEOLAND (SNG) without passing GNG and thus meet WP:N, but not with athletes. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:5P5: The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording... The numerous SNGs become all for naught if GNG immediately overrules them. But that doesnt seems to be the spirit of why SNGs were created; what use would they serve otherwise? If consensus has changed in this respect, it should be formalized with a straight-forward request to delist them, avoiding polarized and voluminous AfDs and DRVs. Until then, the suggestion that the intent of SNGs' current wording was to provide no practical benefits seems contrived.—Bagumba (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The "principles and spirit" of pretty much all notability guidelines is that Wikipedia should not have articles on every random topic, and that when it does have articles, such entries should be able to provide something more than a database entry or dictionary definition. What NSPORT seems to be (based on its very first sentence) is an attempt to help editors determine whether some arbitrary (in this case, sports-related) topic is likely to meet some criteria for inclusion. It's supposed to help editors focus their time on worthy subjects, and discourage creation of articles on subjects for which there is unlikely to be sufficient material for us to write an encyclopedic article. Clearly, in it's current state, it is not achieving that (as it seems to be leading to the opposite of this intended effect, by actually encouraging the creation of articles on topics which there is not much to say about); but that thankfully seems to be more due, inded, to a misunderstanding of the principles and spirit of the guideline (along with some ambiguity which needs to be resolved) than with the guideline itself. It's clear that SNGs can exist without being alternatives to GNGs - many of them, in fact, like

  WP:NCORP, provide explicit advice on this and suggest which kind of sources are likely to be of help to writing a proper encyclopedic article and which ones not so much. I don't see why the fixation that it must be "SNG overrides GNG; or its worthless". If anything, we should be making sure all SNGs correctly predict when there is sufficient coverage on topics so as to assure we provide better quality content to our readers, not trying to make exemptions because of personal prejudice on the matter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Relist The keep voters had some valid arguments. Namely, the possibility of a redirect, and newly added information. The closer stated that no substantial coverage was found. However, since new facts were being added the very day before the close, it's possible enough would have been added given more time. Even ignoring that, was there clearly a consensus even against a redirect? Taking these matters into account, we can not totally dismiss the perspective of the majority keep voters. A relist is needed to truly establish a consensus. Dege31 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I should note that a reasonable case could be made for a redirect close - while one !vote was specifically against it (the nom), the keeps specifically included it as part of their reasoning and the other delete was undecided on the redirect. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The keep side mistakenly thought that NSPORTS excludes GNG (FAQ#1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline), aside from also failing
  Avilich (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I suggest you read Bagumba's comment above and you'll see that editors disagree on this point. They aren't "mistaken", they disagree with your inteperpretation of the guidelines.

  talk) 19:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  But it's not "our" interpretation - NSPORTS is very clear on the need to meet GNG. Obviously they're entitled to disagree with it, but since it's clearly disputed, the correct action then is to take it to VPP with a proposed change, not just misinterpret it. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  NSPORTS contradicts itself however. Under NFOOTY, it states Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG., if all football players had to meet GNG, why would this sentence exist? There is a similar sentence under

  talk) 19:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  This is a fallacy. Since NSPORT only offers a presumption of notability, there is no contradiction because sportspeople not meeting the criteria simply do not get a presumption. wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But GNG also works on a "presumption", yet "meets GNG" is seen as a valid AfD argument.

  talk) 20:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Correct. In the case of sports, consensus is that GNG is usually (not always) sufficient, and NSPORT is almost always not a valid argument on its own. wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Consensus isn't a guideline or policy. consensus is that GNG is usually (not always) sufficient So in those cases where it is deemed insufficient, presumably that is by a local consensus. That is exactly what we have here, a local consensus that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Lawrey should be kept, and yet you voted to endorse the close above?

  If a local consensus can delete an article that passes GNG as you suggest (thus ignoring notability guidelines), then a local consensus can also allow an article to be kept when it doesn't meet GNG.

  talk) 20:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It could, but there would have to be very strong arguments to support that position, and we have the opposite here. wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There isn't much room for interpretation. WP:N says it's either GNG or SNG, but if the relevant SNG also requires GNG, then it's GNG or GNG. Bagumba's walls of text all fail to refute this simple fact. Just because WP:N says that meeting an SNG alone is enough, it doesn't mean that NSPORTS gets to be elevated to anything beyond a predictor of whether GNG can be met, because that is its own stated purpose. A single source would have been enough to invalidate the delete closure and cause a relist, but the keep side wasn't able to do even that.
  Avilich (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The FAQ is clearly incorrect and does not summarise the guideline itself accurately. NSPORTS reads The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.

  talk) 19:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Do you think there was absolutely no possibility for this to close as a redirect or similar upon relist? I don't want to come across as bludgeoning, but since the Xth GNG-NSPORTS discussion is unlikely to be fruitful, I'd like to see what some (new) proponents of endorse think about this. Dege31 (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfD exists, and extending the discussion (relisting) would require that there be some credible evidence of notability (sources) that can be discussed. None in the keep side gave any. Do we really need more than 1 single week if no sources were found? All that a relist would accomplish is the AfD being polluted with more of this GNG vs NSPORTS stuff.

Avilich (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Our job here isn't to be looking for sources to extend the discussion (if it was, we'd have undeleted the article to see how it is already sourced for the sake of this discussion). Our job is to make sure there was consensus in that discussion to delete the article (and I don't see it). Besides, there were already enough sources in the article to support a redirect - so what more sources do we need for that

User:Avilich; they are plausible search terms. Nfitz (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

If you think so, then just go ahead and create a redirect...? Nobody's stopping you. In case I didn't make myself clear, I meant that a hypothetical relisted discussion would have the purpose of finding sources, not we at this DRv.

Avilich (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

File:FuturoscopeClouds.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Image shows a building from France. English Wikipedia should accept this via {{

• Restore with FoP-USonly tag Looks like we have
  an old consensus allowing such free-only-in-the-US images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

For reference, the image and description. -FASTILY 22:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tour Majunga.jpeg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Image shows a building from France. English Wikipedia should accept this via {{

• Restore with FoP-USonly tag Looks like we have
  an old consensus allowing such free-only-in-the-US images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Fastily: my prior request for the restoration of another file of the same name at UNDEL forum was explicitly denied, on the ground that the file was deleted via a formal discussion process (like FFD). Thus deletion review is the best option. Also, unlike Commons, enwiki does not have a feature that will mark usernames with "(A)" if those users are admins. There will be some cases where the admins who deleted some files are no longer admins today. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I was not aware you had already inquired at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion -FASTILY 04:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: to be clear that was about a different file (image of Villa Savoye), but my request was denied. If I requested again at UNDEL for these two files (of two different buildings in the same no commercial-FOP country, my requests may be denied again on the grounds that these were deleted via FFD/PUF and not PROD. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

It is not unreasonable to assume that a reader unfamiliar with the clinic or Irish geography would assume that "Mayo" is not an original full word, but a commonly encountered shortened form of Mayonnaise. They would then arrive by hypercorrection at the conclusion that "Mayonnaise Clinic" is the proper, long form of Mayo Clinic. 9³ (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it's a pretty silly redirect if you ask me but "one editor thinks that the redirect is silly" isn't a qualifier for
  WP:CSD#G3 and Google says that people sometimes use "Mayonnaise Clinic" as a whimsical reference to the clinic. Overturn deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn deletion - roughly per Jo-Jo. It can always be taken to RfD for a proper discussion, but it certainly doesn't meet the G3 standards. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Bad deletion. This simply was not vandalism. ✗plicit 14:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn with option to send to RFD. Not vandalism, though I would say it's not a very plausible redirect. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I'm not sure how I would !vote in an RfD, but it certainly does not meet any speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as not vandalism, and not any other obvious CSD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:10 Commandments in Ilocano.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed as delete because no freedom of panorama here. However, the text is a text of the Ten Commandments (presumably in Ilocano language), which should automatically be public domain. Philippine language translations of the Biblical-era law were formulated in the past (likely Spanish-era), hence the original Filipino translators of the Ten Commandments in all Philippine languages are already dead for more than 50 years. Thus eligible for Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JWilz12345, I'm guessing this file was more-or-less the same as File:10 commandments in Ilokano.JPG? (Perhaps a sysop can verify.) That file has now been on Commons for several years without incident, so you should be able to use it instead; as long as it's available, we probably don't need to work out the knotty copyright issues here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ nope, the image you gave was an image by a different uploader (Filipinayzd). The image I am requesting for restoration (via DelRev since it was deleted via a PUF/FFD) is a file by Jayzl-Nebre Villafania (a.k.a. Nasugbu batangas). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I figured the one would be a decent substitute for the other. As to this particular image: a temp-undelete might be useful. The copyright issue is tricky since even if the text is public-domain, the sculpture itself could arguably be subject to copyright (example). The best choice would probably be to relist at FfD, where these arguments can be aired in the first instance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Extraordinary Writ: the deleted image is of a different plaque and is zoomed in much more closely on the tablet itself, but it is otherwise similar. The text of the commandments is slightly different (there are lots of versions in English) and there is a tiny bit of text at the bottom which I don't think is part of the commandments. Hut 8.5 08:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reviewed the deleted image; it is similar, though not word for word identical, to File:10 commandments in Ilokano.JPG, just on different colour tablets. I would undelete as I don't believe there is any original content that attracts copyright protection. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If the nominator wants to withdraw, don't let my view stand in the way. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose strictly speaking I endorse the close as delete which was the consensus at the time. I'd certainly approve an undeletion now. As so often before, I'm struck by how easily and frequently FFD will rubber-stamp the removal of an image that would help us build an encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't decide whether they're supposed to represent cracks or lightning bolts, but the bits around the edges definitely look above the threshold of originality to me, not de minimis, and deliberately painted-on. The text's irrelevant. —
  Cryptic 09:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • These squiggles are below the threshold of originality in the US (evidence). I don't see what makes those squiggles any more original. I'm no artist, but give me a white paintbrush and ten minutes, and I could do that.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to that evidence a big part of the reason why these squiggles were denied registration is because they were part of an alphabetic system and that the squiggles were not "pictorial content not essential to the purpose of the character". Things would probably be different in the case of the image under discussion here, since it isn't an alphabet and the squiggles are not meant to work like one either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Help me understand how that matters? To my eyes, the lightning bolts seem like incidental decoration not essential to the purpose of the Ten Commandments.—S Marshall T/C 13:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's exactly the problem - if the bolts/cracks were an integral part of the typography/scripture one could say that they are not copyrightable for the same reasons that typography isn't. Being decorative makes them copyrightable, in these terms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the image and description at the time of deletion. Like Cryptic, I see no issues with the text, but the statue's background texture and lightning accents could push it over the threshold of originality. -FASTILY 09:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the tablet art is substantial indeed. I'm not sure if the art is classed as a sculpture or a graphic work, though. In any case,  I withdraw my nomination for file restoration. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Philippines relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No reason for the decision was given by the closer, and I don't see how it reflects policy-based consensus because there isn't a single argument of the keep !voters that was not refuted with policy-based reasoning and in more detail than those !votes themselves. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Completely understand the frustration about this article - there aren't really any relations apart from the 1993 recognition, including a lack of embassies, and would agree that it's
  WP:SYNTH, but looking at whether the closer made a mistake, the discussion isn't one that I think can be easily overturned. I would carefully update the article (though how are you supposed to get a source saying there are no embassies?) and try again at AfD in six months or so. SportingFlyer T·C 20:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I don't see how the zero-info close matches

WP:DETCON. If one set of arguments basically ignore the relevant policies and mostly don't explain themselves when questioned, how do they ever factor into the decision? Surely we could at the very least give them time to come up with something with a re-listing? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse - The close was the correct summary of the deletion discussion. I do not have an opinion on whether the result of the AFD was correct, but DRV is not intended to relitigate the AFD. The nominator and appellant
  bludgeon this DRV. We know what your opinion is. Sometimes you are in the minority. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Statements like that are making this process so frustrating. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (was keep in the discussion) - I offered a rebuttal to SYNTH and NOTNEWS and other arguments raised throughout the discussion, which I found were as a whole a foundation for a larger notability argument - so most votes were in my view correct in addressing notability, especially given that they are the most prominent part of the nomination. We don't have guidelines on whether embassies or no embassies determine the notability of the subject, although it can certainly be an indicator. Disagree with the above comments regarding the lack of relations - both countries have negotiated several agreements, and defense agreements in particular are not mundane. The fact that such an odd relationship caught the eye of The Diplomat is telling. Pilaz (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already told you explicitly that notability was not a part of the nomination. If we're going to have apparent mob rule, it's one thing, but please don't add insult to injury with these kinds of glaring untruths. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Consensus was to keep, same as the time before See
  WP:RENOM, maybe test again in another eight years. Foreign relations of the Philippines and Foreign relations of Croatia and Croatia–Philippines relations having redundancy and little content is not a serious problem requiring fixing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Reluctant endorse. I believe the keep !votes were misinformed and wrong, and that there is no policy basis for them, and that the article profoundly fails
  WP:SYNTH, but the consensus was clear, even if I profoundly disagree with it. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Well, I don't endorse it. With very simple discussions, you can just state the result, but this wasn't that simple. I've seen quite a few of Superastig's closes at DRV in the past few weeks and I've noticed that he generally gets the results right but he doesn't summarize what was said or give any kind of method statement for his closes, so they don't give any actual closure. Joy's overinvestment in the debate was quite extreme--he correctly wrote I feel like I'm badgering the discussion here and then added several further replies afterwards. When anyone displays that level of passion a closer's job involves tact and an ability to let them down lightly that Superastig didn't display. So my view is, OK, the result was right, but it needed a summary and an explanation as well as a hat on it.—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse given the state of the article I completely sympathise with the OP's position, but there wasn't any way that could have been closed as Delete. Hut 8.5 19:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I disagree with the nominator's understanding of
  WP:SYNTH. If I am writing an article about the Styles and themes of Jane Austen I may draw on sources discussing individual examples of these aspects of her writing without the sources actually saying explicitly that they are writing about her styles and themes. I may combine these sources but what I may not do is put forward any claim that is not to be found in any individual source. The sources must relate to the topic, of course. In the case of the article currently under discussion, the situation was complicated by the argument that some (many, all?) sources were individually slight and so a notability issue arises. So, overall, there was a legitimate discussion to be had and the closer was right in not overriding the contributing editors' views. Thincat (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

With regard to the example, sure, but somewhere out there in the real world there's probably at least some reliable sources that can be realistically described to have focused on describing styles and themes of Jane Austin, hence they did the original research on the matter and we don't have to synthesize everything - you can draw from these sources and then add maybe some worse sources (like news articles) to complement some aspects perhaps. In this case, nobody could present anything of the first sort whatsoever, and all we have is churnalism. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per above arguments. Really nothing wrong with the closure. The nom's rebuttals are just
  sheer bludgeoning. SBKSPP (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Wikipedia:Recommend user name (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I want to put this project page in my own namespace so that it can be used as my own essay.⸺Q28 has 5K edits *ଘ(੭*ˊᵕˋ)੭* ੈ✩‧₊˚ 13:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. The page in question implied that there is such a thing as "recommended user names" with a {{
  WP:CSD#G3, I really don't see how you would get to an useful page - even an essay - from that. Granted, removing the template and moving it to userspace might have resolved the issue but I can't object all that much to the speedy. So I'd say keep deleted. I also see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Recommend user name which was one day old and had a lot of delete voters. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - This appears to be an appeal of an MFD closure (rather than an AFD closure), and I have changed the filing accordingly. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if this is an appeal of an MFD. It is not clear what issue Q28 has with the MFD. It appears that Q28 is playing games, and it isn't clear what this has to do with the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• When an established editor wants to work on something, even something that's been deleted, I generally support allowing that. I'm not sure what useful user-space essay can be pulled out of this, but I don't see the harm in allowing it in user space as a personal essay. Hobit (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Bad use of speedy deletion to short circuit an MfD discussion. Userfication requires consideration,
  User:Beeblebrox, either speedy undelete and revert your close, or temp-undelete for review. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse own close. Fist of all, thanks for the ping SmokeyJoe, since it is the only reason I was even made aware of this discussion and this is the first and only indication I've had that the decision was being challenged. I informed Q28 of the speedy deletion on their talk page three days ago and they did not reply in any way. And I think that perfectly encapsulates the mindset that was behind this ill-conceived page. It was a bunch of nonsense three-character usernames, in WP space, therefore suggesting in WP's voice that the project explicitly recommends you chose one of the names presented. Including such great examples as "bqr gqo,idq,jqd,qnf,22j,77f and 88h".While none of these violate the username policy, none of them are recommended either, for the simple and obvious reason that Wikipedia doesn't do that. In short, this user posted this in project space like it was a real thing, and cross posted it at
  talk) 22:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion There is nothing on the page that is recoverable as a page that should be on the project. It is blatant misinformation, and whether it is in project space or userspace it is flat wrong. Q28 might create this in their own userspace anyway. But, if there is an attempt to use it its likely it would be deleted again. I concur with Beeblebrox's actions, and find no reason to overturn this speedy deletion, and no reason to userfy the information it it were undeleted. Per
  WP:UPYES, it has no purpose here as it is misinformation regardless of namespace, and should not be undeleted. Q28, please reconsider what it is you are attempting to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Request temp undeletion to enable review. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've described what it was and why it qualified for speedy deletion, and I've noted this is not the venue to challenge speedy deletions, so I feel
    talk) 00:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    At DRV this is routine. Undelete and replace the content with {{Temporarily undeleted}} and protect. Don’t make it personal about whether reviewers should take your word at face value. NB I am leaning toward “endorse and SLAP the DRV nominator”.

    You are 100% wrong to assert that this is not the place to challenge speedy deletions. You ADMINACCT has not been challenged by anyone, indeed you did not receive courteous contact from the complainer.

    Temp undeletion is not “restoration”. Again request temp undeletion as per standard process. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: It has been moved to User:Q28/user names I personally recommend by Beeblebrox. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have seen the deleted project page, and I concur with its speedy deletion, as noted in my above Endorse.
  WP:DRVPURPOSE2. I have no opinion on a temporary undelete, but temporary undeletes are standard in order to review the correctness of either an AFD or a speedy delete. There are exceptions to temp undelete, such as BLP violations, but this is not one of them. I repeat my statement that Q28 is playing some sort of game in requesting a restore of the stupid deleted page. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• We allow people very wide latitude on userspace essays. The only real condition is that the essay has to be related to Wikipedia in some sense, and this would be, so I can see no reasonable grounds to deny this.—S Marshall T/C 13:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't dispute a word of that. What I would question is why this went to DRV at all. This isn't a valid DRV as the outcome of the discussion is not actually being challenged by the nominator. Since all that the nominator is asking for is not that the MFD be overturned but that they be allowed to host this nonsense in their userspace, I've done that, it is now at
    talk) 17:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Moot as the deleting admin has userfied the page. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Yaniv waxing case (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

• Well,
  Jessica Yaniv waxing case. The "...waxing case" page was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case three years ago (no consensus to overturn at DRV); a deletion discussion on Jessica Yaniv ended up with no consensus two years ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv. Some of the content is also at British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal#Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Sharouser may be referring to the
  birth name. In any case, I don't see why the restoration of a different (albeit related) article would justify restoration of this one. --RL0919 (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse.
  WP:SPINOUT, and for that, use Talk:Jessica Yaniv. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse there isn't any policy-based rationale to undelete the article here. If you know what the deleted content says, you think it would improve the existing article, and you can find an admin to agree with you, a restoration for attribution purposes would be possible. Otherwise no. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, no actual problem with the AfD or new sources given. Note that the delete rationale said subsequent coverage might reach SIGCOV: recreation of this article as a draft to any editors who believe SIGCOV now exists is reasonable. — Charles Stewart (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What is in this article that isn't in Jessica Yaniv? Seriously asking, as non-admins can't see, but that article looks to have reasonably comprehensive coverage of the case. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the fact a related page has been restored isn't a reason to restore this one, and I don't think it would add anything to the article we have. In particular this page was deleted while the case was ongoing, which means it's all out of date now. Hut 8.5 08:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian weston chandler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article subject is very notable for 2 reasons, and there is good RS that note both these points. Firstly, as an example of cyberbullying and trolling, they are one of the most (if not THE most) extreme cases of being trolled and bullied, and I think its an important article to point out the harms of cyberbullying and trolling. Secondly, the article subject has been often noted as probably the most documented person on the internet, with both a 2000 article complete website devoted to them, and an extensive documentary on them. I had checked previous examples of the article that had been deleted, they were years old and a lot of recent RS had appeared, which substantiated the article. I work on AFD quite a bit, and this article IMHO had more than enough RS to establish it.

I'd spent quite a bit of time on this article, and I would ask at least that some editors look at it and judge it on its merits, rather than it simply be deleted unseen, without any discussion. I had contested the speedy deletion, but the article was deleted without going to AFD to allow a broader discussion (as explained by the deleting editor, due to the older articles being deleted). It would be great if someone could undelete the article, so editors can see the recent RS and judge it on that - thank you. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse.

No. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse and speedy close per the dozens of other times we've had this discussion, and basic standards of decency. Spicy (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think editors are misunderstanding, I think its an important article to point out the harms of cyberbullying and trolling, as an example and providing information about exactly how trolling and cyberbullying happens. It's not written to promote it. This stuff can't be stopped if people don't understand how it works, and that's what this article does. It can help researchers and people writing about the area if the information is provided and the noted RS is available in the ref list in the article. Also, I hope my article creation history would reassure people I'm not a troll! I didn't understand exactly how trolling works, but I do now after researching for this article - but if it's deleted it won't help other people understand the process. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not our place, full stop. If you want to soapbox, get your own website. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse I'm sure you mean well, but in recent discussions from just last year there was very little appetite to let an article stand ([9] [10]). Feel free to provide a
  WP:THREE if you disagree, but you're going to need some very high quality RS to convince anyone. Jumpytoo Talk 09:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 1 - "Chris Chan, the online personality accused by police of incest with her mother, has been trolled by the internet for over a decade" - https://www.insider.com/chris-chan-incest-trolling-harassment-kiwi-farms-bluespike-liquid-chris-2021-8
• 2 - "A timeline of Chris Chan's incest charge and the years long online troll interest in the 'Sonichu' creator's relationship with her mother" - https://www.businessinsider.in/thelife/news/a-timeline-of-chris-chanaposs-incest-charge-and-the-yearslong-online-troll-interest-in-the-apossonichuapos-creatoraposs-relationship-with-her-mother/slidelist/85054017.cms#slideid=85054185
• 3- "Kiwi Farms, the Web’s Biggest Community of Stalkers" - https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/kiwi-farms-the-webs-biggest-community-of-stalkers.html* Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course, Wikipedians have discussed this many times and always come to the same conclusion. That's why all the variations of Chris Chan's name are salted. The matter comes up on the administrator's noticeboard every few months and the answer is always the same. We can't do much to help Chris but we can at least refrain from doing further harm. The community's view is a reasoned, thoughtful "no". I hope that doesn't make you too unhappy.—S Marshall T/C 09:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, there's already lots of awful stuff out there for people to read. By Wikipedia not putting up an article, we are not stopping or preventing any of that. But not putting a good balanced/article to point out some of the evil that was done to her...we are missing out on doing some good. Missed opportunity :-( Anyway, as you note, the die is cast and there is no point in talking about it, it's not going to change anything. Thanks for the comment though, I do really appreciate it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • JarlaxleArtemis. That history does not factor into my argument except that JarlaxleArtemis was and is no different from another member of the virulent and persistent Internet hate mob.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Endorse, speedy close, and list at
  WP:DEEPER. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse the subject is only known for internet trolls creating extensive documentation of her life as part of a harassment campaign. Creating an article on her is inevitably going to contribute to this. Much of the content is also stuff which absolutely should not be in an article about any non-public living person. Hut 8.5 12:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am confused. This is a poorly filed case. What has been or is being deleted? It appears that there are at least two titles, Christian weston chandler and Chris Chan, which have been salted. Apparently the appellant expects us to know, and apparently some of the editors do know, what this is all about. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Deathlibrarian wants permission to recreate Christian weston chandler which was created by them and deleted & salted by Liz. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Christine Weston Chandler, Christian Chandler, Christian Weston Chandler and other name variants ("CWC") refer to a tragic and depressing case of an American transgender woman who's on the autistic spectrum and I suspect might have other mental health needs. Early in the history of the internet CWC started a venture as a content creator on various social media channels. This was spectacularly unsuccessful and during this time CWC very unwisely disclosed some personal information they shouldn't have. They came to the attention of people from Encyclopedia Dramatica who thought their content was hilariously bad and their disclosures were the funniest thing ever. These people from ED encouraged them in their oversharing and built an online dossier about CWC in order to ridicule them. Some years later, CWC confessed to a sex crime for which they were arrested, attracting some media attention in the process, not because the crime was notable (it very much isn't) but because the media knew that an article about them would get page views. In other words, CWC is a vulnerable person/perpetrator, and there are also privacy concerns about a parent/victim to consider. CWC is a low-profile individual who needs criminal prosecution, social worker intervention, and very likely therapy but nothing about this case warrants publicity or attention from the general public.—S Marshall T/C 21:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the long and the short of it. Even if Deathlibrarian's plan weren't to

  hijack it for their own pet project on cyberbullying, this article would simply not be okay because the nature of the harassment means any article or draft would be a contributor to that harassment. We would have no power to stop that other than to delete and salt the article again, because we do not block read access even to glocked users. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Allow draft, following
  WP:THREE. If recreation is a BLP trainwreck, the use of draftspace is fair containment of the damage, however, I see sources that justify some coverage in some form. If the Oversight deletion is being challenged, see WP:Oversight for how to challenge their decisions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This is a nonstarter, as CWC's situation is such that any article or draft would, if not be de facto furtherance of the harassment, than would inevitably be edited to that end. There is a reason my rationale explicitly points out
  and we emphatically shouldn't add to it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• For reference, the deletion discussion about this subject was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Weston Chandler, with a previous DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 20. --RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and suggest a SNOW close. Due to the certainty that any article will contain BLP violations, this article must not be created. Your "there are reliable sources" literally does not matter. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and salt every imaginable variation of the name. Creating this article would be a big victory for the vile trolls who have been viciously harassing this person for many years. Cullen328 (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- I did have further thoughts, but it's obvious this is not going through, and I had already stopped commenting - all good, its no big deal. From my perspective, I was trying to do some good here. My idea was to get a neutral article up, that countered some of the shit on the internet, and then heavily restrict it from BLP violating further editing. I was just proposing that as an idea - there's nothing wrong with that. I understand people's logic for not doing that - that's cool. I would thank editors for their comments here, but also I don't think there was any need for snyde comments from certain editors here...May be some people need to check out
  WP:AGF Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I don't think anyone's really baying at your blood over this (not even me). However, this is a perennial issue that crops up damn near every other month and the answer has been the same every time no matter who's offering it up. This is one of those instances where we technically could have an article, but it would come at the
  WP:BLP#Avoid victimization also tells us that in situations like this (where there is a protracted and concerted harassment campaign taking place offwiki) we should not have an article on the subject. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I hope this doesn't scare you from taking on other, less controversial subjects for content creation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completely no issue thereLiz, as you said before, if you hadn't of deleted it, someone else would have...and I understand the context. This has been a sincere and for the most part polite discussion, and its reassuring that people are keeping the wellbeing of CWC in mind. In the last 16 years I've seen infinitely worse than this and kept contributing - all good. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of hip hop albums considered to be influential (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

How funny. Were interested projects and editors notified? I wrote or more probably rewrote this article, I think simply as List of hip hop albums ~12 years ago, very closely along the lines and methodology of List of prominent operas which had undergone peer review and was a featured list. The google results for searches for this sort of list in hip hop were worse than unscholarly at the time, and perhaps still are. Message threads on forums were among the *best* results. The article was rudely moved some time later without discussion by someone to the title it was deleted under. As an ip editor i could not move it back. This awful title is given by many as a reason for deletion.

No one in this Afd read the talk page 'til it was well underway, when apparently one editor (arguing keep) did. Things very deliberately done, and reasoned on the talk page, following best practice, are cited as negatives in this afd. The use of specialist *and* generalist sources, for instance, was quite deliberate. The selection of the sources was carefully reasoned and justified in the talk page. They are better sources than Paste magazine was then and probably is now, yet it is called "overlooked". The rap-specific Pitchfork list mentioned came out many years later, yet i put it and other worthy new sources on the talk page, and suggested or asked for ways to incorporate them. Discussion of albums mentioned in this afd like All Eyez on Me and so on is all in the article's talk page, rigorously connected to sourcing. (I can't read the Talk page so this is all from from memory).

"comments lifted straight from the sources, and the sources seem pretty arbitrary as well" This is a complete falsehood, because it was painstaking work paraphrasing the sources concisely, and mixing paraphrase with sparing use of direct quotes (*in* quotes, of course). Not all of this work will have survived in the deleted version, which i cannot read, but it's apparent much of it did.

One thing that is true is that the page was a nightmare to maintain. A popular google result, it attracted dartboard editing, and everyone wanted to include their favourites immediately. I was under the impression that this was not a valid reason for deletion by policy or consensus.

I honestly don't care if this and other articles along similar lines are deemed not to fit. I just find it interesting what survives and what doesn't, and why. Polls about films are superior to works by experts in the field! Opera is static! Other stuff exists! And so on. It certainly could not be

• Endorse only because there doesn't seem to be such a thing as a Speedy Endorse. This doesn't appears to be an appeal or to cite any error by the closer, and the close is the correct close. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That the methodology followed that of a peer-review featured list article which still exists is intended as a refutation of WP:SYNTH. Additionally this was brought up in the review yet the close says it went unrefuted. :) 78.18.237.81 (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd also say the careless and out-of-process page move, which i could not easily undo, clearly influenced afd attendees arguments and made the page easier to delete, which seems like a failure of Wikipedia to me 78.18.237.81 (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this isn't supposed to be a second round of the AfD. Deletion review normally only overturns discussions if there was a mistake made by the closer, some kind of procedural error in the discussion, or perhaps a new argument or changed circumstances which might have made a difference in the discussion. I don't see anything wrong with the close and there aren't any procedural errors claimed. The comparison to
  synthesis - it amalgamated a bunch of different sources, many of which aren't focusing on "influence" or on hip hop, to create a meta-list not found in any of the sources. Any attempt to recreate it or rewrite it will have to address that concern. Hut 8.5 08:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Deletion reivew is a location to handle cases where the deletion process was not properly followed. It is not a venue to raise or re-raise arguments that belonged at the original discussion; DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Charbel Lelo Sejean (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article is full of unverifiable news articles, the fact is that this person is using this wikipedia page as self promotion, despite never playing at a professional level and even self professing 3 and a half years of no active football. Hannibalhamilcar (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was previously kept at AfD. If
  talk) 14:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - The closer correctly assessed the consensus that the subject passes
  general notability. It isn't up to DRV to decide de novo whether the subject passes GNG, but the article does make an adequate case for GNG. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Could not have been closed as "delete". The article is horribly
  WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I am concerned by the article history at
  WP:COMMONNAME, but that would require unsalting, so the very creation of this article appears to have been under avoidance of presumably appropriately applied create protection. I could be wrong, but based on what I can see of the logs and past discussions, that's what it looks like to me. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, could not possibly have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have started a requested move discussion at
  talk) 14:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse since there's a consensus to keep on GNG grounds but the article itself is absolutely ridiculous and needs
  WP:TNT to remove the self-promotion, as the vast majority of it is about a football career that fails our football notability guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 20:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Discussion with closing admin:

Overturn to no consensus.

Cunard (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Properly deleted; Cunard's source analysis was critically flawed.

Cunard offered three sources, which I presume are the best sources for demonstrating notability.

1. "Just about every serious photographer in the world knows about Lowepro. Lowepro camera bags are sold in more than 60 countries. They have been lugged up Mount Everest and hiked into the Alaskan back country. And most of them came from an unimpressive warehouse on Guerneville Road in Santa Rosa. Lowepro is one of the biggest camera bag dealers in the world. Its parent company is based in Toronto, but since the early '90s, all of the design and distribution work has been done by about 25 employees based at the Lowepro headquarters in Santa Rosa."

This is puff writing from a very close perspective. Not independent. For coverage of a for-profit company and its product, I expect dispassionate distant-perspective writing. How does the author know the mind of every serious photographer? How does the author define "serious". How does the author know the company staff numbers since the 1990s, unless the author directly interacted with the company or its staff in writing this story?

2. "Backpackers and nature photographers have relied on Lowepro's versatile and rugged camera-bag systems for 30 years. The packs' hooks, loops and malleable partitions make them adaptable to any trip, and their nearly bulletproof nylon skins and cushioned compartments are both protective and lightweight - perfect for the trail or mountaintop."

Again, promotional puff. Not a chance that this was produced independently of the company or the company's promotional materials.

3. https://web.archive.org/web/20220131081237/https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/industry-news/petalumas-lowepro-seeks-sales-boost-with-drone-carrier/

The writer's perspective is inside the head of the company, the writer knows the company's strategic manoeuvring to partner with a drone carrier, and this is a primary publication on it. The writing is puff promotion of the drones, and the company's packs and cases. Such excitement over the routine! In the 2nd paragraph it is giving price information and where to buy it from, with a quote from the CEO. Blatant non independent.

All three fail the GNG due to non-independence. Wikipedia does not want this material that is re-churned promotion.

Source searching from the AfD links reveals saturation promotion of the company products.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as the wrong standards were applied. Lowepro is a brand, not an organization. There are dozens of reviews for different Lowepro products on Google News, for example CNET, and Wired. While glowing reviews of a high-end product may look like puffery, that is not a guarantee of editorial non-independence. Page through the lists of Google News results for reviews in various photography, tech/geek, or other print media over the years (Wired link is from 2009), and it's clear that this is not a non-notable brand. Full disclosure: My wife has one of these. It lasted longer than her photography habit did. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources: NYT from 2003 and 1992. Does anyone seriously suggest that the NYT is going to review non-notable brands' products multiple times (You can go find the others easily with the links in the AfD) over four decades? Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The 2003 article is promotion, and even contains explicit quotes from the vice president of the vendor company. If these brands are notable, why is it so hard to find independent comment on them? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    So anytime an RS quotes a company employee, it's automatically an advertorial? The reason you can't find independent comment on them is that anything that comments on them, even the New York Times, you are deeming to be non-independent and/or promotional. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, afraid so. If the author of the article has gone to a company source for the material that they publish (product details, product description, product price), and what they write is all positive, and they include zero contextualisation that involves history or similar products, then yes, the article is the churning of promotional material and is not a suitable basis for an encyclopedic article. While it may be true that this reputable newspaper would only review Wikipedia-notable products, their articles, if they meet my description, are not GNG/NCORP compliant sources.

    If the topic were notable, why is there not an article at Camera bag? This generic article would contain a list of notable camera bags. It would cover the history of camera bags, and the variation in styles. It would not be telescope-focused on one particular bad, based on sources that only describe that particular bag, in positive terms, before winding up to tell you how much and where from to buy it.

    Compare Trousers, and Kidoriman the top hit for my google search for "buy trousers".

    If Lowepro is a brand, why are the proffered notability-attesting sources reviews for their products as opposed to reviews of the brand? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    A brand is made up of products. Lowepro products, of various kinds, have been getting RS'ed reviews for decades, so while an individual well-reviewed product might well be notable, covering the brand makes far more sense per

    WP:NOTCATALOG. The premise that any quotation by an associated company official taints an otherwise RS coverage of this or any product smacks of anti-business bias. Sure, we don't want paid placements counting towards notability, but when they NYT is lumped in with them, I think you are making an untenable argument, or one that if applied consistently would result in other unhelpful outcomes. Why hasn't anyone profiled lowepro as a brand? Heck if I know. For all I do know, someone did, but none of us can find it among decades of glowing reviews for their products. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Jclemens, I make no suggestion that NYT reviews are not RS-es, just that they may not be independent RS-es, as required by the GNG, and as emphasized by NCORP.

    When you say "taints an otherwise RS", do we understand that we are talking *only* of compliance with the "independent" clause of the WP:GNG?

    I am pretty sure I am not being stupid when I observe that these NYT etc single-product reviews have a distinct pro-product POV that smells strongly of non-independence. Compare this single product review with this this multi-product review. In one, the pros are calm and objective, and in the other they are over-the-top glowing. In each review, are the cons are things that will turn off some buyers, and are multiple brands are easily and fairly compared, or have you been cornered by a salesman?

    Single-product reviews featuring company quotes and description, and unverifiable first-person personal-experience testaments, do not make for a good start to an WP:CORP article. In contrast, similarly-RS multi-brand reviews for a generic topic do make for a good start, and I have started one at camera bag. I have reviewed the references in the deleted article and decided that *none* of them are suitable references for Lowepro content at camera bag. In the context of a generic topic, they are obviously promotional.

    A brand is made up of products? No. Products are a brand's output. A brand is made up of people, employees, customers and financiers, and it features a history and a reputation, and a brand values and manages its reputation, which includes establishing and managing relationships, including with NYT review writers. Inadequately disclosed influencer marketing is a thing, eg, and as disclosure is not mandatory, to protect Wikipedia from native advertising, if the publication does not declare independence from the brand, then Wikipedia should not assume they are independent. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You are correct, your terminology is more precise than mine was, and the issue is indeed of editorial independence rather than reliability as a whole.

    While I grant that guerilla marketing is indeed a thing, and indeed something we need to protect Wikipedia from, the fact is that this brand has been around and covered in otherwise touchstone sources for four decades. In 1993, no one knew about SEO, because there wasn't really much of an Internet yet. I understand that you don't see it this way, but I view the conduct of the New York Times as a hallmark for what Wikipedia should emulate. I mean, we could use Consumer Reports if we want to arrive at impeccability rather than actual coverage, but Wikipedia independence should not be expected to exceed the usual and customary conduct of the internationally reputable press. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel a bit that I am fighting an honourably for the wrong side. I'll agree that the NYT review is a very reliable indicator of notability, and I agree that Lowepro is a notable brand worthy of inclusion. However, the article was terrible, and the AfD couldn't justify it, and the NYT reviews were not in the picture. The Cunnard-supplied three references are not GNG-compliant sources that are good to use to start off an article in the right direction. I have now reviewed the references in the deleted article:

    1. Company's expansion announcement

    2. Internal company document, headered "NOT FOR RELEASE" !!!

    3. Company's own chronological history document.

    4. Marketnews reference for company trademark registration, yet the link doesn't mention the company.

    5. Another internal company document headered "NOT FOR RELEASE".

    6. A broken link, referencing a promotional statement.

    7. A CNET single product review. If you buy the product, the CNET editors "may get a commission".

    8. Broken link, fixable, same as #7 but for a different single product review, again with the declaration: If you buy the product, the CNET editors "may get a commission".

    As an example of how to establish a NCORP page, references 1-5 utterly fail, even G11-worthy. References 6-8, supporting the "Products" section, are not suitable sources because they are commission-generating single product reviews, not objective, no contextualisation with similar products and similar brands, and no history only recentism.

    Textbook

    WP:SPINOUT

    is justified.

    Your NYT sources are better. However, they were not in the deleted article, and were not mentioned in the AfD, and so are not a basis to overturn. An advertisement for Lowpro was deleted, and properly so. This does not mean that a NCORP-complaint article can't be written.

    WP:TNT

    .

    -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is en excellent evaluation of sourcing. Great points, well made. But why? This DRV is turning into an AfD.

    HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    I think as I am uninvolved in the AfD, I have more leeway to analyse the participants’ analyses. The question at hand is whether the closer overreached in dismissing Cunard’s proffered sources, and the sources in the article are a big part of the picture. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  High-end product reviews, that are glowing, describe intimate personal experience, and contain not a word of historical or other brand contextualisation, and read like puffery, do create an undeniable feel of non-independence. The 2009 wired article is a personal testament and recommendation finishing with "This size costs $55, and is the baby of the range. There are two larger models, and the chest strap costs another $10 (plus the cost to your dignity)". It is standard advertorial. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. The closer gave inappropriately low weight to the keep !votes which gave good and policy-based reasons for the article to be retained. (Aside: Lowepro is absolutely notable in photography as a major gear brand. This isn't a contribution to the DRV as it would be a point appropriate to the AFD, but I'm quite surprised it managed to get deleted.) Stifle (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closing admin correctly identified the nub of the issue. If the Lowepro "brand" is, in fact, notable, then where are the references which discuss the "brand"? For those that point to an article that discusses "camera bags", just be aware that the "brand" appears to cover a lot more - for example, the website lists the current products (I assume there were others in the past that are no longer available) which includes 13 different types of "bags and backpacks" as well as Laptop/Tablet bags and drone cases. There are also 22 (yes 22) different "collections" on the website. The closing admin correctly identified that in the absence of reliable third-party sources discussing the brand in a way that met our guidelines and with enough in-depth independent content to enable an article on that topic, then the entire article is
  HighKing⁺⁺ 12:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • • • I also wish to add that there are two Keep !voters, one of which is NemesisAT. It is notable that according to their AfD stats, Keep !votes are made 98% of the time but only matches consensus 62.3% of the time (compared to Cunard at a whopping 95.2% and my own at 88%). That is one of the lowest I've encountered (with the exception of Eastmain - another problematic AfD contributor with consensus at 55%) and strongly indicates that NemesisAT's participation at AfD is disruptive and with an ulterior motive or undisclosed agenda - put simply, editors who have participated in hundreds of AfDs and show stats that low clearly don't understand our policies and guidelines and shouldn't be !voting at AfDs at all.
        HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • You do realize that while not particularly nasty or vitriolic, what you have just done is a textbook ad hominem argument, right? Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • • The intent was to rebutt the opinion right above mine which claimed the closer gave an inappropriately low weight to the keep !votes. Don't see why a statistic on an editors !voting patterns could or even should be taken as ad hominen especially when it influences decisions at AfDs.
              HighKing⁺⁺ 20:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
              ]

          It's also inaccurate, firstly because the equivelant figure for HighKing is 84%, not 88%, and secondly as both figures ignore "no conesnsus" results. I'm also a bit miffed neither I nor @

          talk) 14:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

          ]

• Endorse as per
  neutral point of view and other policies probably can be written and approved, but this was not it. Treat this as a Soft Delete, and allow submission of a new article, but relitigating the deleted article is the wrong answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Reviews of a company's products are not the
  Calidum 18:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Draftify. I think I am seeing GNG compliant sources in the context of searches for camera bags. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and redirect (maybe a bad idea per replybelow) to Camera bag, and encourage creation of of the section Camera bag#Popular brands, to which content can be merged from the history behind the redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFD would delete that redirect in a New York minute. Not only is it not mentioned at the target, we never redirect specific products, brand names, or company names to the article for the generic item they're selling. A section like you propose might possibly work if it were in an already well-developed and very well-maintained article; in a barely-watched stub like

Cryptic 23:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

True. I can find lots of independent multi-brand review articles, so the section can be written. There are also many other camera bags with articles that can form a bluelink list. If the section is not written, draftify instead. I have just been reading through the references in the cached version of the deleted article, and while I read the corporate history as interesting, I am not impressed with any of the deleted article's references. So maybe I should say instead: Advise interested editors to add content to camera bag. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources 1 and 3 mentioned by Cunard in the AFD appear to be independent, and the coverage is significant. The fact that a journalist has read a press release, spoken to someone from a company, and possibly visited their premises, does not make that journalist non-independent. A journalist writing about businesses in their local area is likely to have researched the more important companies locally, including any with well known brands such as Lowepro. If there is a reason they don't contribute much to notability, it is
  talk) 14:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Are you planning to answer my question about what other accounts you have edited with?

  Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Replied on my talk page.

  talk) 22:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Relist If this AfD hadn't been relisted twice already, I'm fairly sure it would of been to try to find more consensus. However, no discussion of the AfD occurred until after the second relist, so I would treat this as an AfD with 0 relists, and per that fact relist once more to try to determine a consensus. Jumpytoo Talk 02:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on a second. The entire purpose when relisting is to generate further discussion in order to see if a consensus can be reached. So that happened. The 7 days from nomination had elapsed, multiple editors were involved and a consensus was reached to delete the article. What's your point again?
    HighKing⁺⁺ 11:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Whether a consensus was reached (two keep votes and two delete votes) is debateable which is why this discussion is taking place.

    talk) 12:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    To clarify, I also do not see any sort of consensus in the AfD. The only vote before Cunard's was a

    WP:TNT grounds, nor there was any consensus that Cunard's sources are not enough to show notability. Jumpytoo Talk 04:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• overturn to NC or relist no consensus was found for deletion. As noted, it seems to meet the GNG pretty easily and I don't think it needs to meet
  WP:CORP. And yes, the fact there was no discussion early probably justifies another relist. Hobit (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Why do you doubt that it needs to meet NCORP? It is an actively trading and advertising for-profit company. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a company (at this point) it's a brand, yes? WP:CORP applies to organizations, not brands? I agree it's screwy, but IMO that's not close to the most screwy part of WP:CORP. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It most definitely falls under WP:CORP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus or relist, because there very clearly wasn't any in that discussion. There is no agreement about whether NCORP applies (so there is nothing "most definitely" about it) but regardless of whether it does or it doesn't the only sources that matter are those about the topic of the article - so in this case the absence of coverage of the brand owner is completely irrelevant as that was not the topic of the article. Two people felt the article demonstrated notability, two people felt the article didn't, the arguments that it didn't were not significantly stronger than the arguments it did. Indeed given that topics that meet the GNG are notable regardless of what a subsidiary guideline of disputed relevance suggests I'd actually say the keep arguments were the stronger, but not so much that they had consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Astounding to hear multiple normally sensible editors doubt whether NCORP applies. Lowepro is a company (it is a manufacturing company, it makes photo bags and backpacks; in 2017 it was bought by Vitec) . The article described the company, using company documents, and described two of its products that are currently being advertised, with the references supporting the product content being to promotional sources.

  WP:NCORP

  beings: "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services ..."

  How is that even ambiguous?

  "Two people felt the article demonstrated notability". This is not true. Cunard did not argue anything based on the article as it was, but argued notability based on other sources not in the article (it was a fair argument rejected by the closer, and my analysis supports the closer's rejection, maybe the rejection was a bit supervotey). NemesisAT's feelings that Cunard had demonstrated notability makes no claim that they thought anything about the state of the article and its astoundingly poor sources (company documents).

  At best, the keep !voters were arguing

  WP:TNT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It's not, you are right. I'd missed the "or any of its products and services". But that's utterly unreasonable. Every book, song, and sports team would fall "products and services". So that's another reason I have for thinking WP:CORP is a hot mess and should be depreciated. Hobit (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not unreasonable at all. Every book, song or sports-team than is featured in promotion, for profit, is a potential abuse of Wikipedia

  WP:SIRS. When push comes to shove, it consistently is borne out by consensus, that promotional commercial topics are not given leeway in passing the GNG. As per DGG (07:12, 31 January 2022) in the AfD: "[The article] is an advertisement". Every source in the article failed the GNG, unambiguously per the clarifications at NCORP. Leeway is appropriate for historical culturally significant books and songs, but not for latest releases being simultaneously advertised and written into Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  We have a

  WP:NCORP. I'll go a step further and say that such a view would not have consensus. Hobit (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It’s not very hard to see where a division between NBOOK and NCORP. Read them, read at least the nutshell and lead section (which you didn’t do for NCORP).

  It the book historical, or the basis of a movie, or a cookbook, or an online contract freelance book writing product? NCORP should definitely apply if there is a current advertising budget.

  Books may cross fields, but camera bags? In what way is a camera bag like a book? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Two things: #1 I'm not seeing anything about "products" in the nutshell for NCORP. #2 My comment was the having NCORP include all "products" is overly broad and would reach far into other SNGs, including NBOOKS. Again, I think NBOOKS is controlling wrt books. I think most folks would agree with that, advertising budget or not. Hobit (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. 1 Logical “and”, means read both.
  2. 2 A topic is usually only expected to meet one SNG. If it meets NBOOK, it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t meet NCORP. And that’s just for indicating likelihood of passing at AfD, where the unltimate test is “consensus”, exactly as Thryduulf was saying.

  Lowepro doesn’t meet NBOOK. The deleted page didn’t meet NCORP. Arguably, other sources may pass NCORP, but I suggesting adding coverage at camera bag. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My point is that it doesn't matter whether NCORP applies, but no guideline is relevant to a discussion unless there is consensus that it does (otherwise someone could rock up to an AfD discussion about a church and argue for deletion because it doesn't meet PORNBIO or NFOOTY, which are arguments that nobody could refute). Based on similarly strong arguments an equal number of people argued that this topic is and is not notable - a textbook no consensus close. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I now need brain bleach after envisioning the AfDs for religious organizations where either SNG might also arguably apply. Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  SNGs tend to be permissive, you generally need one to permit the article, not all of them.

  If a commercially sold camera bag company and two of its products are not covered by NCORP, then by what? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Once again, whether it is covered by NCORP is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Thryduulf, it may be irrelevant to your argument that there wasn't any consensus in the AfD.

  It is relevant in that "NCORP" featured heavily in the discussion, and here my input it that NCORP is definitely an applicable guideline to helping assess the notability of a brand of commercially-sold camera bags.

  I think your input "Overturn to no consensus ... because there very clearly wasn't any in that discussion" is reasonable input,

  but I think "There is no agreement about whether NCORP applies" is absurd and I think that we should reject this statement of yours.

  You give a rationale "the only sources that matter are those about the topic of the article - so in this case the absence of coverage of the brand owner is completely irrelevant as that was not the topic of the article", but I struggle to make sense of that part. "the only sources that matter are those about the topic of the article" says nothing to NCORP, and what are you saying about the brand owner? The brand is owned by the company Lowepro, and Lowepro is now owned by Vinten (aka Vitec). Are you saying that NCORP doesn't apply because Vinten wasn't covered? The article covered a company and two of its products, and so WP:CORP definitely applies. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Interesting DRV. I think Spartaz got this absolutely right. Trying to distinguish this as a brand is critically flawed and nevertheless doesn't rebut Spartaz's either-or situation. In the alternative, if we assume this doesn't, then that would imply subsidiaries wouldn't fall under NCORP since they're owned by a parent company. Lowepro seemed to have unique employees as recently as at least 2011 if it doesn't now, appears to have started as a company, and any normal individual looking at their website wouldn't know they weren't their own company. That being said, this could be salvaged as a stand-alone article if additional sourcing is found. SportingFlyer T·C 20:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]