Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 October 8

WP:NPOV (e.g. content forks) since the presence of the article could lend legitimacy to the fringe viewpoint ("fringe" in the sense that the claim has very little international support) that the Kherson oblast belongs to Russia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closing statement is a supervote.

In their rather brief closing statement, the closing admin simply voiced support to one part of editors and summarily dismissed the entire argumentation of the other side.

My view is that it was wrong to claim that Wikipedia editors have achieved consensus to delete the article or that those dozens of editors arguing for keeping the article did that only as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That was simply not the case as can be seen in the long and complex discussion.

The situation can possibly be explained by the fact that the closing admin has very limited experience of deletion discussions – this was their 6th close ever. Also, I couldn't find, in their editing history since 2013, other situations where they'd have to carefully judge the consensus. Even their participation in past deletion discussions was extremely limited (they participated in no more than two dozen discussions altogether).

Considering how charged the debate was, how many editors participated, and how complex was the argumentation presented, one would expect that this particular discussion would be closed by an experienced administrator. Alas, this did not happen, we have a supervote instead, and hence this deletion review request.

The same applies to the arguably incorrect closures at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donetsk People's Republic (Russia) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lugansk People's Republic (Russia) by the same admin.

I'll be grateful for an unbiased review of the discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have taken this to DRV quite yet, as I was still discussing this with the closing admin, but I strongly support overturning to no consensus, per my comments made here. Would be reasonable to have another AfD in a year or so, once we get more details, but there is not a present consensus to delete these articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument in favour of keeping the article isn't good and the Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China article needs to be deleted for the same reason. It cites the Chinese government in its sources and the independent sources cited (like Source #3) do not support the POV that it is a province of the PRC. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose (non admin) there are enough vote to delete.

Panam2014 (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not about counting !votes. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions are not votes, so that's irrelevant. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 22:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Elli, but I don't think there's a procedure for the closing admin to revert own close and undelete the article in question. Or, am I wrong? Also, your arguments on Talk require that the other person have a fair understanding of what the article is all about, while from their arguments (CRYSTALBALL, etc.) it appears that unfortunately we are not yet there.

I strongly support overturning to no consensus. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are allowed to undo their closes, and it's generally good practice to ask admins to consider self-reverting before taking them to DRV. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, never too late to learn. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose changing the decision. The rationale was clear and reflects the balance of the discussion. A significant proportion of the 'Keep' votes were either pushing a pro-Russian POV, or using this case as a proxy arguments for other situations they viewed as parallel elsewhere. The simple fact is that the two articles under consideration were POV forks, artificially synthesising material about the real (Ukrainian) oblasts in question with information already covered in the exsiting articles about the Russian occupation. Enough already. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
using this case as a proxy arguments for other situations they viewed as parallel elsewhere you have this backwards. It's not even in dispute that such articles exist (or could exist) for pretty much any other claimed first-level administrative subdivisions. Also, these articles existing is not pushing a Russian POV. Russia claims these Oblasts exist as constituent parts of Russia. They have defined territory and governments. Having an article for any claimed first-level administrative subdivision is the neutral thing to do; we can explain that these are unrecognized in the articles on them. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GenevieveDEon That's irrelevant. Most editors have a certain POV and there's nothing wrong with it. The issue at stake was whether the article duplicated an existing topic, and some people argued that it did. The counter-argument – which I strongly support – was that it did not, because this article was about an administrative subdivision of the Russian Federation, while the two other articles mentioned in the discussion are about something else (an administrative unit of another country, and about a war). The closing admin failed altogether to address this point – for instance, they wrongly claimed that CRYSTALBALL was a valid argument, even though the article subject was in existence at the time of closure. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - The closing admin,
other stuff exists and "this will exist", which are textbook bad arguments. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Where did the closer address what you claim apart from
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? 77.191.152.45 (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse closure (uninvolved admin). This is a classic case of a discussion that would end up at
WP:DR no matter how it was closed. The close was a correct reading of the discussion and the strength of arguments, even without explicitly weighing sockpuppet and SPA participation. I don't see how admins can weigh arguments at all (as they are supposed to) without being subject to assertions that the weighing constitutes a supervote. BD2412 T 02:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Where is the proof that it was a correct reading, when the closer linked only the three policies
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the article didn't match the first two and the latter is not a reason for deletion? 77.191.152.45 (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse. Good rough consensus call. It is the role of the admin to shut down a time sink when it is clear enough where it is going to end up. There was way too much POV. It was not a Supervote. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. Correctly based on policy. Not a supervote. Risker (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the proof that it is "correctly based on policy", when the closer linked only the three policies
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the article didn't match the first two and the latter is not a reason for deletion? 77.191.152.45 (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Endorse there was more policy-based reasoning in the delete (and
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, though that alone wouldn’t have changed what was probably a correct close on a difficult AFD. Frank Anchor 04:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Can you substantiate the claim "there was more policy-based reasoning in the delete"?

The closer linked only the three policies
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the article didn't match the first two and the latter is not a reason for deletion. 77.191.152.45 (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The article most certainly did match
a deletion review is NOT the place to relitigate the AFD as you are attempting to do here. Frank Anchor 13:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Closer comment Apologies that my closing statement was too brief, my intent was to summarize how I weighed the arguments, not give the impression that I dismissed one side entirely. I think it's reasonable to weigh comments that are along the lines of "as per the Chinese and Taiwanese precedents" less than votes that specified a policy-based rationale. Once I did that, and tried to ignore SPA votes, a consensus to delete became clear. I'd note that enough comments were reflections on the status now, and I would not be shocked if things change enough in a month or two that end up superseding this discussion. Finally my regret is that there was no proper way to consolidate all three AfDs given that the arguments for/against deletion were effectively all the same, they just saw differing levels of participation. Legoktm (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure of AfDs. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? 77.11.186.231 (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close (uninvolved admin).
WP:NPOVVIEW runs counter to accepted guidelines. - Fuzheado | Talk 06:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NPA 77.11.186.231 (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Nothing even remotely resembling a "personal attack" is going on here, not by Fuzheado, or any other participant in this discussion. BD2412 T 19:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't claimed, but a pointer to a policy was made, probably because of concern of violation, at least the violation is obvious. 77.191.152.45 (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citing
WP:SNOW territory, I'm semi-protecting this page to limit further discussion to verifiably experienced editors. BD2412 T 21:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse close Doesn't look to be a super vote to me, reasoning is based on policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the proof that "reasoning is based on policy" when the closer linked only the three policies
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the article didn't match the first two and the latter is not a reason for deletion? 77.191.152.45 (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
To you the article might not have matched, but to others it did. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 23:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as reflecting both the discussion's conclusion and the preponderance of how worldwide RS'es handle these matters. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
endorse for now I was involved in the AfD. I do think the keep side made reasonable arguments that depending on the next few months, we may need to reconsider this. But for now, solid close. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – This was a hard closure, and would have inevitably ended up in
content forks, and policy does not allow those. The segment of the community that responded was simply wrong, or, rather, slightly more than half of them, the ones who said to Keep, were wrong. This was the right difficult decision, to ignore the nationalist POV input. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse close as it failed WP:Reliable sources. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) - Not a supervote. A supervote would be if the closer had closed it on a basis not argued in the discussion, but the policies/guidelines on which the closure was based were cited repeatedly by those in favour of deletion. POVFORK was cited by Fram, Volunteer Marek, Slywriter, Michael Z. and others. Similarly CRYSTALBALL was cited by AxolotlsAreCool, Knižnik, and Volunteer Marek. OTHERSTUFF by Ashill and * Pppery *.
Some above have cited the numerical count as a reason to over-turn, but
Wikipedia is not a vote, and in this case the closer found the arguments of those in favour of deletion more soundly based in policy/guidelines than those in favour of keeping. Moreover people saying this should have been closed as no-consensus based on the numerical count are doing so based on heuristics (particularly the "should be 2:1 in favour to close things that way" heuristic) that have no consensus in favour of them and are not the outcome of any explicit consensus, they are at best rules of thumb that the closer can ignore depending on the circumstances - in this case the fact that the page was obviously under attack from sockpuppets and vote-stacking gives a very good reason to do so. Even if they weren't there the numerical ratio (very roughly 80:60 in favour of deletion) was in favour of deletion and weighting it by the strength of the arguments deployed pointed only to one outcome. Good close by Legoktm FOARP (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse I agree with others that no matter what the closure, this AFD would likely have ended up at DRV. I agree with Legoktm's close and I'll admit that I have a special admiration for admins who take on reviewing complex and long deletion or RFC discussions and come to a summary of how a dispute should be decided because it, at times, can look like a "no win" situation not matter what the close is. But I also acknowledge that this whole subject is a fluid situation and an article on this topic might be warranted at a future date. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that this discussion is covered by
WP:GS/RUSUKR and comments by IPs and non extended-confirmed accounts should be summarily removed rather than replied to. nableezy - 02:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Overturn to soft delete/redirect. Frankly, given the discussion/vote was still ongoing ~24h before the close, I'd consider simply relisting this, but who wants more dramu, eh? But why hard delete if we have plausible redirect targets (Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast etc.)? Some content here might be usable for a merge, and the term can be seen as a viable redirect target, it has been used in some news pieces etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

specific draft space article, and not the validity of the closure in the original AFD. From what I gather, the draft was rejected a few times, the last time was about one and a half years ago. Not everyone in this discussion is convinced that the article now meets notability standards, but some are, and most of those who aren't are willing to see a fresh review. I am not experienced in evaluating draft space articles, and I am in particular not familiar with the reliability of the sourcing used here. However, anyone who doesn't have a conflict of interest and is otherwise impartial may make such a review and determine whether moving the draft to article space is appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've been pointed to DRV from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lana Rhoades and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#01:19:41,_7_October_2022_review_of_submission_by_Mbdfar. I will copy and paste what I wrote at the latter.

I am requesting a non-biased re-review of

Draft:Lana_Rhoades

on the basis of new sources not discussed in the 4 previous AfDs, the last of which was in 2020. Over half of the cited references did not exist at the time of the last discussion. The same closing editor in the last few submissions has not commented on or reviewed any new sources, instead deferring to the old AfDs.

I'll start with the industry specific sources. Keep in mind, these are NSFW. Here's the Playboy article published in 2021. Playboy is listed on

WP:RS

. This is a multi-page biographical source about the subject's life and career and clearly a reliable, secondary source with very significant coverage.

There are three AVN sources in the article, and more at the AVN website. These have been discussed in previous AfDs and dismissed as non-RS. However, AVN as a source was reviewed and listed at

WP:RS

in 2021 (after the AfDs). The three sources are AVN articles, not press releases as previously argued, which is explicitly considered generally reliable for the adult industry. I sourced the articles that did not mention the subject's business to avoid promotion.

There are two articles from Grazia UK. I can't find any discussion about the source, but it seems to be an established publication. The author of both cited articles is an editor of the magazine. This article I believe to be especially in depth. Is it uninteresting celebrity news? Sure. But I don't think it can be dismissed as a mere tabloid. It can be inane and still a reliable source that shows notability.

The Daily Beast article has had mixed opinions in previous AfDs about how significant the subject is within the article, but I think it's much more than just a namedrop. I'd welcome further review.

GQ has been considered a reliable source in a previous discussion, and this article has never been discussed in a previous AfD. This is a simple article about a milestone in the subject's career. The g1 article has also not been discussed. Both of these are significant coverage and not promotional.

Then there are those sources concerning the subject's foray into crypto. None of these sources were published at the time of the previous AfDs. This includes the capital.com article and the bitcoin.com article. I'm not sure how to assess the reliability of these sources, but they are both written by employees of the websites. Both are significant coverage and are not promotional in nature.

There are likely more WP:RS than what I've listed if this does not prove to be enough. For one, XBIZ is listed at WP:RS as being considered generally reliable for the adult industry. I have not cited any XBIZ articles, but there are 130 hits when searching for the subject. There are also 53,900 hits on Google News for the subject. Yes, these are 99% tabloid fluff non-RS junk articles, but there are certainly some RS hidden in the haystack.

All in all, I just want a fair review of the article. I think the subject is notable and worth inclusion. I have no connection to the subject - I've just been surprised how much backlash there has been during this drafting process and would like to see it through. Mbdfar (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving the article to mainspace and allowing another AfD, if people think the subject's notability is still unclear. Given that there are new sources since the last AfD, it's reasonable to think that the subject's notability may have changed. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though, the page isn't protected. You could copy the contents of your draft to the article, and if someone reverts you, tell them to take it to AfD, explaining what you explained here. Not sure DRV is necessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After four afds, a mfd, three drvs, a blp speedy, and five saltings (variously as a redlink or a redirect), surely some caution is called for. "Just recreate it" is usually the right thing to do, but not for a subject with this much deletion history. —
Cryptic 21:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Fair enough. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, in particular the one from Playboy, have me comfortable with moving this to mainspace. Many of the other sources seem fine too. I think we are now well above WP:N. Still, no objection if someone feels the need to bring this to AfD down the road. Not sure what the bold !vote here would be, but permission to move to mainspace I guess is what I'm thinking. Hobit (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ready for mainspace The Playboy and Grazia sources, which I agree do not appear to have been discussed in the last AfD, appear to be BLP-quality independent, non-trivial, RS. I think this is a case of DRV inertia: the more times we've deleted something, the fewer people are willing to look at current notability with fresh eyes. It can, of course, be nominated for deletion again. Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Review of Draft, acknowledging that I previously argued for deletion:
- - I have not reviewed this version of the draft at this time.
  - I will note that previous proponents were often being disruptive and
    tendentious
    , and the current appellant is being collaborative.
  - Occasionally there is a case of a subject who becomes
    notable largely by virtue of the controversy concerning an article, similar to being famous for being famous
    . This is such a case.
  - ~~I will provide more comments after reviewing the draft.~~ Robert McClenon (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will not be reviewing the draft because it appears to be the same draft that I rejected more than once, although it has been modified, and I will recuse from review.
- I will note that previous submitters did two things that predictably angered me:
  - Resubmitting a Rejected draft without first discussing it.
  - Submitting a draft when the title is either a locked redlink or a locked redirect, so that a reviewer cannot accept the draft even if he wants to accept it.
  - Robert McClenon (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: are you recommending the draft be resubmitted for review by someone else?
Are the playboy and daily beast articles the same ones mentioned in the last AFD which closed as delete? If they are then I don’t see anything further to discuss.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Daily Beast was previously discussed, the Playboy article was published after the AFD. Mbdfar (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And why not discuss the other sources I highlighted? Mbdfar (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed this article multiple times over the years. It still does not read like an encyclopaedia article as the sourcing is frequently salacious or just a comment here and there. So in no particular order, Grazia looks like clickbaity gossipy rubbish. The daily beast already been considered and rejected. Playboy, not independent - its clearly interview based and promoting their photoshoot. , None of the rest looks worth my time. With respect there is a point where the users demanding that their pet article be included despite clear evidence that the community has rejected it need to be more respectful of the time and energy of the reviewers. Frankly, looking at the draft and your attempts to wear editors down into acceptimg it, you now need to stop and find something useful to do. Endorsed
Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see anything at
WP:RS
saying sourcing can't be salacious, only that it should be significant coverage within a reliable, independent, and secondary publication. Like I said above, the Grazia articles are uninteresting rubbish, but shouldn't the question be whether Grazia is a reliable, independent, and secondary publication? If the answer is yes, then significant coverage would contribute notability to the subject. I believe the answer is yes. In terms of Playboy, sure, the author conducted an interview in preparation for the article, but they discuss information originally presented elsewhere. It's certainly not written as a Q&A interview. I believe that qualifies it as a secondary source. It's also independent of the subject. As you said, it may be "[Playboy] promoting their photoshoot", but Playboy is independent of the subject. It can be Playboy promoting Playboy, but that does not matter as it is independent, secondary, and significant coverage of the subject.

Do you have any opinions on the AVN sources? As stated above, AVN was discussed and listed as a
WP:RSPSOURCES after all AFDs had closed. I would like to see discussion of these sources with this precedent considered. Mbdfar (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
With respect its annoying for you to try and police the meaning of the comments of people who disagree with you and you are well into bludgeon territory now. I disagree with your analysis. I don’t accept avn and xbiz as sourcing for an article without additional high quality sources. Your sourcing is not high quality and doesn’t support the high quality standard that we should be aspiring too for a BLP.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry you feel that way, I was just contributing to the discussion. I suppose I'm more interested in this particular case because it seems there have been some
WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments instead of policy based ones. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but when you disregard sourcing as being "salacious" and ignoring community consensus regarding reliability of sourcing, it makes me assume bad faith. Especially when you have such a history with this subject. Mbdfar (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I beg your pardon? What do you mean by history? I really hope that you are not going to start casting aspersions?
Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
You said that you have reviewed this article several times over the last few years. I'm sure that you have reviewed some terribly written and sourced forms of the article. However, I think that history can lend itself to a ...And Stay Dead! mentality instead of a collaborative one. Perhaps that was unfair to assume. Mbdfar (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to main space on the strength of the articles in Playboy, which I think is unquestionably a reliable source, Grazia, and to a lesser extent, the Daily Beast, which is beyond a trivial mention and some indication that the subject is notable outside the adult video industry. This article will likely be submitted to AfD again, so the page collaborators may wish to consider whether the article is sufficiently sourced to withstand that. Personally, I do not consider AVN to be reliable sourcing (other than its own awards) for any BLP, and I suspect you may encounter others with a similar approach. But I do think that there is enough here to make the case in main space. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.