Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 November 4

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

)

Requesting consensus/permission to recreate article. Consensus was that BLP1E applied in March. Since then there has been coverage about his role in the ongoing public enquiry, therefore another event. There was many previous events he was notable for, such as running for office, but consensus seems that those more minor events did not get enough coverage. I think the new burst of coverage does illustrate notability. Examples:

1. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1929974/commission-rouleau-cedu-enquete-publique-etat-urgence-audiences-jour-16-convoi-camionneurs
2. https://ottawa.citynews.ca/national-news/freedom-politics-control-and-money-the-many-motivations-of-the-freedom-convoy-6048169
3. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-benjamin-dichter-helped-promote-a-cryptocurrency-fundraiser-for-convoy/
4. Also from June https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-freedom-convoy-renegade-jew-benjamin-dichter

Note that news sources tended to call him BJ Dichter earlier this year and all seem to use his full name Benjamin dichter now.CT55555 (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Review of Draft - No need to endorse because already endorsed in earlier DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not in scope for DRV. No deletion occurred. It is redirected to Canada convoy protest, with a clear opinion that coverage should be within that article. Now, you want to spin it back out. For that, start a talk page discussion for consensus to do this, at Talk:Canada convoy protest. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not start a new draft. Do not fork to draftspace, at least not without consensus to do so, at Talk:Canada convoy protest. Draftspace is useful to waylay junk new creations made by inept newcomers, but it is not a substitute for article talk page discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know what "fork to draftspace" means, but I think I understand that you think I'm in the wrong venue to ask this question and I should ask on the talk page. I'm trying to do the right thing here, currently assuming I'm in error and you are correct. But I also don't want to be accused of forum shopping, so I'll wait for this to close before taking that action. CT55555 (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but discuss, the close(s) were correct. But concur with SmokeyJoe that a Talk page discussion makes more sense. Consensus there, should it emerge, is more than sufficient for an established editor such as CT to create if Dichter is now suitably notable. That said, I don't fault CT for bringing it here given it had been here once. Star Mississippi 02:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dictator of Belarus (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

Change keep to delete per the precedent established at so-called "Azerbaijan dictator" page Madame Necker (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The time to make that argument was during the RFD. Since the Belarus discussion was more recent, and since Wikipedia generally doesn't operate on a basis of precedent but instead on the idea that
  Cryptic 14:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @Madame Necker: thanks for the ping. Can you describe the precedent you are seeing that is established? Jay 💬 15:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  First, there is consensus that any BLP issues/concerns have been addressed per WP:RNEUTRAL, as Ilham Aliyev is described in multiple reliable sources as a dictator.

  However, there is another issue: there are multiple people who could be considered as an "Azerbaijan dictator", as Ovinus argued, which is a strong reason for deletion. Disambiguation was suggested as an alternative, however multiple people explicitly opposed disambiguation at the current title, noting that "Azerbaijan leader" would be a better disambiguation page (there was no opposition to that proposal if someone wishes to create that, though no one explicitly supported it). Legoktm (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC) Madame Necker (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but you have just copied and pasted Legoktm's close. I am asking for the precedent that you think there is established now. Jay 💬 16:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's the precedent. Madame Necker (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, this conversation isn't happening. With no input, I won't be able to comment on this deletion review. Jay 💬 17:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per
  User:Cryptic and a clear conseneus to keep in the RFD. This appears to be an attempt by User:Madame Necker to relitigate the RFD because she did not agree with consensus. Frank Anchor 17:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse While the subject might be controversial, the closure of this RFD discussion seems very straight-forward. Is there a reason you didn't participate in it, Madame Necker? As Cryptic states, that was the appropriate place to put forward your argument that this redirect was inappropriate, not here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz My sister had a car accident last week and I had to take care of her, and it was also a busy week at my workplace. Madame Necker (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved, recommended keep) - the close was a correct reading of the discussion. Even if the Azerbaijan discussion created a precedent (which it didn't) that Wikipedia is bound to follow (it isn't) it still would not be relevant because "Azerbaijan dictator" is potentially ambiguous but "Belarus dictator" is not, neither Azerbaijani leader (to my knowledge) described themselves as a dictator but the Belorussian leader has done. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf It was in this video where he was calling himself a 'dictator' in an ironic remark. I don't understand why some users here want to treat someone's self-identified humor as an indication of supposed neutrality or reliability. Madame Necker (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly that is irrelevant here as this is not a forum for relitigating the discussion, but even if we were it doesn't matter, because it is a plausible search term for three other reasons - (1) he used the term to describe himself, so that makes it a plausible search term regardless of how he used it; (2) multiple other people have used it to describe him; (3) the term is discussed in the article. The

  WP:RNEUTRAL policy explains that non-neutral redirects are permitted in some situations, and the discussion concluded (correctly imo) that this is one such. TLDR: redirects do not have to be reliable or neutral (that is the job of articles), they just have to be plausible search terms that have an appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Thryduulf The precedent established says it is irrelevant whether it is neutral or not because there could be multiple people -wrongly or accurately- identified as "dictator of Belarus". Madame Necker (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Madame Necker I will not be engaging in any further attempts to relitigate the deletion discussion here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a proper identification of consensus from the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Madame Necker's been blocked indef, for those what don't have one of the gadgets that make that more visible. —
  Cryptic 04:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]