Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 September

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

The article was discussed at

@JBW Thanks for starting this discussion. I was not sure about the best path for seeking a notability re-assessment. I am now convinced the subject is notable and should have an article. I think the community should be given time to develop a page, building upon the current redirect. If this forces another deletion discussion, that's totally fine, but right now I don't know of any other way to give this a shot. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem with using protection on something where notability can change: the actions of enthusiastic newcomers are often indistinguishable from trolls, because neither will start a discussion or work through channels: well-meaning newbies don't know how to, trolls don't care to. I don't think deleting the history was the right thing to do for a question of notability, where it might have been if this was a copyvio, promotion, or attack issue. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It looks like the article was only recreated three times, two times in quick succession by an IP editor shortly after the AfD (3 years ago), and then once recently by the editor who created an article under a different title (I'm guessing they simply weren't aware of the previous AfD - it looks like the content of the article they created doesn't really overlap with the old revisions?). I don't think that's enough to justify even semi-protection, much less full protection. (Though maybe there's more background that's not readily accessible from the revision history?) Colin M (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two recreations shortly after an afd are typically enough to justify salting a redlink. There's no defensible reason why a closure as redirect should be treated differently, so I endorse the protection wholeheartedly. No opinion whether recreation is now justified now that it's being discussed on talk rather than being attempted by simple reversion. —

Cryptic 23:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Two recreations by an IP editor in the span of two days might justify a couple weeks of semi-protection (though, since it was a single editor, I think it would have been better to deal with them directly, by issuing a warning and then a block if they continued to edit against consensus). But indefinite full-protection is a huge overreaction. Colin M (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is about a change in circumstances since the AfD, as the AfD closer, I have no opinion on this. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You do get, right, that if somebody believes that the basis for notability is different today than it was three years ago, then it is not necessary for DRV to overturn the original deletion before a new article can be created? As I always point out, AFD is not a permanent ban on the subject ever being notable enough to have a standalone article — it's merely a judgement on the state of notability as of the time of the discussion, and circumstances can change to make people more notable in 2022 than they were in 2019. (Sometimes the candidate who didn't win election #1 actually does sometimes win election #2, eh?) Simply having competed on Drag Race without winning isn't enough for notability by itself, but people who didn't win Drag Race can still accrue notability for other reasons — and if a person becomes more notable in the now than they were in the back then, an article is allowed to be created again even if it was previously deleted. So DRV is an entirely unnecessary step here — I can't personally say whether Plastique Tiara has become more notable now or not, as she isn't a queen I've actively followed all that closely, but if somebody believes that Plastique Tiara has accrued sufficient notability for other reasons to override the fact that just being on Drag Race isn't enough in isolation, then they're free to write up a proposed new article in draft or sandbox. It can then be moved in place if it's good enough, and DRV doesn't need to weigh in first at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closure and the subsequent actions including locking of the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I respectfully disagree with User:Bearcat, who says that DRV is unnecessary. Some review is necessary to approve downgrading the protection of a locked fully protected redirect. A draft cannot be moved in place of the redirect until the redirect is unlocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except that absolutely any administrator can move a page overtop a protected redirect... Bearcat (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat is right. DRV is not necessary. DRV is not even appropriate. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that any administrator can move a page over a protected redirect. But when should or will an administrator move a page over a protected redirect? Some AFC reviewers will not review a draft that must be moved over a locked redirect. What guidance should be given to reviewers about reviewing drafts to replace locked redirects? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP

.

No administrator should move the draft over protection, but they should downgrade protection on request by an AfC reviewer attesting that the reason for deletion, or pseudo deletion by redirection, has been overcome. The RFPP admin should not be asked to review sources, certainly not ten sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Downgrade protection of redirect to ECP or semi, so that a reviewer or other experienced editor can move a new draft into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse protection. This is not obvious, so advise better process to make it easier to process:

1. Too many sources have been offered. Choose the best

WP:THREE

for evaluation.

2. Formally propose reversing the redirect AfD decision at the redirect target talk page,

Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11)

. Not the redirect talk page. The redirect target is the broader scope page, with more editors, more watchers. The redirect is an obscure page for a formal proposal.

3. This is not a DRV matter until #2 has a result and page deprotection is denied at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I was not intending to comment here again following my opening of the review, but in light of various comments above, perhaps I should clarify the purpose of asking for a review. I did not intend this to be about whether either the closure of the deletion discussion or my subsequent actions should be endorsed or not. All that is water under the bridge. My sole purpose in inviting a review was to consider whether the situation has changed enough since the deletion discussion to make it now suitable for an article to be created. Probably the commonest purpose for a deletion review is to assess whether closure of a deletion request should be endorsed or overturned, but there are other purposes too, including "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" (quoted from Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose, and that is the purpose I had in mind. Of course editors are free to discuss other issues, such as whether the deletion discussion was correctly closed, if they wish to, but I suggest that there is no useful purpose to be served by doing so, and that it would be better to stick to considering whether "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". JBW (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure why so much discussion and work is required just to give editors a chance to re-expand a page which was previously redirected. I've shared sources on the article's talk page and suggested the subject is notable, so can we just get a bit of time to work on the entry in main space, please? This doesn't need to be so complicated... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  JBW, understood. But

  WP:THREE

  . If they can’t pick the three best, chances are that all nine are weak, and the request is asking too much. Two good sources are enough. Is the editor seriously thinking that maybe the first seven are not but maybe the last two are?

  Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose Requires updating. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If Exactly three are desired, use

• Plastique Tiara, of ‘RPDR’ Season 11, to appear at Globe Bar & Kitchen for Pride
• Plastique Tiara talks Asian representation, family pride and her accent
• Plastique Tiara makes it werq

Those were the ones that I came up when this first came up and I think Another Believer didn't include those since he was adding to the list. If Another Believer things another one should replace one of these I don't mind.Naraht (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You are welcome to create a draft. That said, the last two sources are actually the same article and largely an interview without much in the way of analysis. And the first one is pretty limited. If those are the best three, I don't think we're above
  WP:N's bar. I'm one of the few folks who doesn't mind interviews, but even then you really only have one decent source. keep deleted for now but one good source would probably be enough given everything else. Hobit (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

#1 is promotion of an event, giving ticket prices and the website to buy them from. Such a source can never be independent evidence of notability.

#2 has almost

WP:100W

words of secondary source description before it gets to the interview that must be discounted as independent evidence of notability.

#3 is like #2, some preamble that contributes evidence, but it is short. It’s hard to read, being behind a paywall.

This is a borderline call. I recommend that you make a draft and submit to AfC. Don’t use the first source at all, it’s inclusion contributes a reason (WP:NOTPROMOTION) to delete.

SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth are editors being asked to recreate another draft? Sources have been shared, but now we're being asked to whittle down the list? Give me a break! A couple of experienced editors simply want to work on the existing page, which is protected. This is taking so much time and effort just to allow us access to build upon what was previously redirected. Can we cut down on the bureaucracy here? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's the way this works: when an article has previously had enough repeated-recreation problems that protecting it was necessary in the first place, we have to be able to see what new notability claims are actually on offer before we can decide whether the basis for notability has actually changed or not, precisely because not everybody has an equally accurate understanding of what is or isn't "enough" in the first place (else there wouldn't have been repeated-recreation problems). So what's so phunking "bureaucratic" about simply creating a draft anyway? There are several administrators involved in this discussion who'd be happy to just fast-track a draft right into mainspace if it's good enough, so what makes that such an unreasonable burden? Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat So you're saying I should take the redirected markup, create a separate draft page, then expand and seek to move the draft into the main space? A bit absurd if you ask me, but I'll go that route if that's what you're saying is required. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not “recreate another draft”, but request draftification of the old version and use it to highlight better sources and how they will be used. This may be good for the drafter to better organise and present a few new sources.

The new sources as present are failed by my assessment, and the topic has been previously found to not be suitable for a standalone article. The default is “no”, this is not a suitable topic, and then the onus is on the proponent to disprove the AfD result. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove protection. In case I've not made my position clear above, my vote is to remove protection of the redirect and allow editors to expand the article. In my opinion, the subject is clearly notable per GNG and editors should be given time to build on the redirected page, in order to preserve the article's history. I understand editors decided to redirect the article back in 2019, but also there were multiple keep votes and zero delete votes, which to me suggests notability was 'on the bubble' at the time. However, there has been more coverage since 2019, and I'd rather see another AfD discussion than not give editors a chance to expand the redirect. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, I see that the Thomas Milo article was deleted after a discussion. This guy is a giant of Arabic typography. I was going to make an article about him, but I'm wondering if the article could be undeleted or if I could have access to the deleted text so I don't have to start from scratch.

I have plenty of sources. There's virtually an entire chapter about his work at DecoType in the book Nemeth, Titus (2017). Arabic type-making in the Machine Age. The influence of technology on the form of Arabic type, 1908-1993. Brill.

No objection to restoring deleted article to draft or user space for further improvement to demonstrate that there is more evidence for notability than was brought up in the 2021 AfD. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree on Milo's stature - I tried to save the article at AfD and failed - I'd be glad to see a draft worked on based on that article text with more sources added. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• support userfication without prejudice to a future AfD. Reasonable request by an editor in good standing to write an article on what now appears to be a notable topic. Seems great. Hobit (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, the original close was fine. This is a case of new information, not an error in the close. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No issue with the close, but support restoration to draft where إ can work on it and then move to mainspace. Star Mississippi 01:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if the close is being appealed, but will note that editors commented that sources might be available. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy or draftify delete article if that is being requested, and allow it either to be reviewed or moved to article space at risk of another AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I was not aware this was at DRV and I had already offered draftification yesterday at the RfU. Jay 💬 17:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as correct close. No prejudice against recreation in draft space and eventually on main space with proper sources. Frank Anchor 20:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Go to
  WP:REFUND and request userfication or draftification if you want to see if you can overcome the reasons for deletion, whether immediately or sometime in the future. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Thomas_Milo already exists. While I already !voted, I also think this could possibly be closed without three more days of bureaucracy. Star Mississippi 17:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Instructions at

  WP:REFUND

  need to be clear that they can request REFUND to where it was, to draftspace, or to userspace. Their REFUND request is stalled on the technicality that they appear to be requesting direct back to mainspace.

  Instructions at DRV should be improved, but that discussed stalled long ago. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As the person who declined the REFUND request I'm happy for this to be restored to draft or userspace. Hut 8.5 17:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The tone of the article was adequately neutral, there were references to the great majority of the biography info and there was no COI. ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If any admins are passing by, I'd appreciate a temp-undelete here. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Cryptic. I'm at weak overturn: I think this article is unlikely to be kept in the long term, but G11 applies only to pages that are "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements", which is a pretty high standard.
    WP:FIELD comments that "Blatant spam is not articles with a questionable tone", and I think that's what we're dealing with here: the article could use a cleanup tag, but that doesn't make it exclusively promotional. That said, I won't lose any sleep if the G11 is endorsed, and since the article would very likely be deleted at AfD I'd strongly encourage the author to find another article to work on instead. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse CSD G11 Undeleted and recreated while I was doing NPP, so found it via there. Obviously filled with
  ~Styyx^Talk? 21:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Hi Styyx,

  The puffery was unintentional, I try to always write in a positive manner that engages the reader. I'd be more than happy to remove these phrases, I already have a revised version in place.

  Kind regards, ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are evaluating the deleted version, not what it could have been. And again, I doubt that this is notable, so I'd advise against that.

~Styyx^Talk? 10:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• That content was moderately promotional. It reads like it came from the subject's own website or marketing material and I too would wonder if there was a conflict of interest somewhere if I saw that.—S Marshall T/C 23:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy, send to AFD, essentially per Extraordinary Writ. Indeed, tone was overly promotional, but that can be addressed by editing rather than deleting. I am not persuaded of notability, but the sources provided (and potentially others) can better be evaluated at AFD. No criticism of the admin pushing the button on the speedy, which was not unreasonable given the tone and suspicion of COI. But given author's assurances of no COI, plausible claims of notabiity (even if unclear if valid), and local sources including in other languages than English, it warrants a closer look with more eyes.
  Martinp (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Struck my !vote above, now say Endorse deletion. Whatever the merits of the arguments, the author has now submitted a draft, and time will tell what will come of it (it seems it will need at the very least a rewrite to be accepted). That seems likes the approach most likely to eventually lead to a decent article, if one is warranted at all, so no reason to overturn this deletion remains.

  Martinp (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse G11. The prose was promotional to such an extent that the article would need a full rewrite by somebody without a promotional agenda;
  WP:TNT applies. Sandstein 12:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Clearly written as an advertisement/promotion. Possible
  WP:COI too but there is enough to satisfy G11 even without COI. The subject is possibly notable and a more neutrally-written could be created (and challenged at AFD), but that is not the scope of this discussion. Frank Anchor 13:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I'm not sure where
  AFC rather than trying to rewrite this one which was full of promotional language more suitable for a personal website. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thanks for the tip, Liz. I will submit to AFC. ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Draft:Raffiey Nasir

  You can access the draft here, if you're interested. ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Close call. I think it's fairly easy to fix, but it was certainly not neutral or even close to it. send to AfD seems like the best way forward but I can't really fault the admin here. Hobit (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD as any contested-in-good-faith CSD should be. I can see arguments for and against G11 applying, so AfD should sort it out. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The attempt at a revised version convinces me that this really does need a fundamental rewrite, not just incremental tweaking. Endorse. —
  Cryptic 22:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse G11 - would need a fundamental rewrite, and page creator has already submitted Draft:Raffiey Nasir for review at AfC. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 04:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse G11 because a fundamental rewrite is needed, and because there is now a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to
  COI detectors of experienced reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - I will be declining the draft. It is still written "in a positive manner that engages the reader", and that isn't
  neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Hi Robert,

  I tried to avoid anything positive. I guess I'm too positive a person. Do you have any lines in mind that are non-neutral? I'd appreciate any feedback. ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to
  the Teahouse. I don't like to be asked what lines are non-neutral, because that question is too often asked by paid editors who are asking us, the unpaid editors, for help in writing for Wikipedia. In other words, you are both writing like a paid editor and asking a question that is asked by paid editors. You really need to find a different style. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Hi Robert,

  I took a look at your comments on Teahouse before they were removed. Thank you, they were helpful. With this in mind, I edited and resubmitted the article. Thanks, ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak endorse. Not that blatant, but still reads like a resumé. Without accusing the nominator of any wrongdoing, I suggest they (and the article's author) read our guidelines on COI and NPOV. Thanks.

talk) 05:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

I think that this AFD was closed prematurely. It was relisted by User:Liz (first relist) on September 23rd, when there was a single delete, and very recent comments tracking down what appeared to be potential, but inaccessible, sources. Less than 12 hours later it was closed by User:Explicit with no explanation, after one more delete vote (that didn't take into account the comments about chasing sources).I've been trying to engage the closer without much success. I'm asking that this AFD be relisted. Nfitz (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - The closure by Explicit one day after the relist by Liz defeated the purpose of the relist of giving editors time to find sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Strictly speaking there's no requirement to wait any specific amount of time after a relist before closing (
  WP:RELIST is clear that "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days"), but I have a hard time seeing a consensus to delete here given that Nfitz's reasonable argument that sources may exist went unrebutted. Giving editors some additional time to engage with that argument seems wisest. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist there are only two delete votes. One asks for others to ping him if notable sources are found (and this user has a history of striking “delete” votes upon sufficient sources being presented). The other presents an opinion with no policy basis. With a legitimate possibility of further sources being available, I think resisting would be the best option. Frank Anchor 21:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• We can't constantly keep relisting articles about 1-game sportspeople, though. AfD is poorly attended nowadays and it's not fair on the other articles that actually contain sources worth discussing. The delete outcome was appropriate given the atrocious sources present in the article after the full 168 hours. I'd endorse and permit a fresh creation of the article with decent sources when those are produced (and not before).—S Marshall T/C 23:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If it was only a 1-game sportsperson, User:S Marshall, even I'd vote delete. The case made is that there are traces of long-term Danish coverage - presumably for the Danish League. The article indicates he only has 1 international game - which is 1 more than most players. Either way though - the discussion of further sources was very active and new when it was closed hours after being relisted. As for the 168-hours - the number of AFDs submitted recently makes it impossible for anything but the most committed editor to even read all the AFDs in detail - let alone do the research to comment. The comments that are germaine were all within a few hours of the relist, shortly before closure. This is a symptom of a bigger problem (as Liz has alluded to) best discussed elsewhere. Nfitz (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But these further sources are entirely hypothetical. If you believe a further 168 hours would have enabled them to be found and linked, then why not find and link or cite them here, in this DRV, right now? That would make a convincing case to overturn.—S Marshall T/C 18:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not about demanding the OP link to sources here. Reading the text of the AfD and checking the linked search as would be reasonable to expect to be done in any close, it's abundantly clear that there's four or five articles that cover this person, at least one is highly likely to be an obituary, given the date. Less than a minute is required to confirm that. Why the rush to delete here? Why was it unreasonable to wait a more than 24 hours to see whether access to the archive was possible? Obviously, rhetorical questions, best answered with a relist. :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My understanding, User:S Marshall, (which may be wrong) is that DRV is used to review the validity of the close, not to argue, or further, the case for keeping. I thought trying to add further sources in DRVs was considered bad form; also, we were at the point in the discussion where we'd identified a database that would quite probably have such sources, but we needed to find someone who could access more than the index - and therefore we need a point of discussion. Nfitz (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just some comments, as an admin who patrols the daily AFD log. Over the past few months, there has been a flood of articles about athletes being nominated that has exhausted those editors who actually care and work on these biographies. I've seen a decline in participation overall at AFD and those editors who use to regularly weigh in on the biographies of athletes in August no longer attend newer AFDs on these subjects because, honestly, it's felt like a tidal wave of article deletions. So, while as a closer, I wouldn't have closed this discussion when it was closed by this administrator, it is not unusual these days to close discussions with only 2 or 3 editors participating and, sometimes, with the only participant being the AFD nominator. This is far from ideal but the number of deletion discussions relative to those admins who will close them is high. And relisting discussions just so that more editors can participate in them is highly discouraged. There is more I could say about AFD and the pressure to close discussions with a decision other than "No consensus" (despite limited editor participation) but I'm already off on a tangent that will probably annoy the regular participants at Deletion review. But there's my 2 cents on the context for a closure like the one under review here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I'm mindful of the contributions of both Liz and S Marshall which are relevant in general, however, there are certain specifics to this AfD that indicate the closure was premature. There was an engaged discussion, the cascade of pings showed responses from interested editors. The final pinged editor, who has been active over last couple of days, was barely given 24 hours to respond. Absent any reasoning, there's no indication why the rapid closure so soon after the relist when there was a still open discussion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is an open-and-shut case: three well-founded "delete" opinion versus one person who believed that there might possibly be sources somewhere but did not express a definitive opinion. Functionally unanimous. As always, if sources are found, the article can be recreated. Sandstein 11:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Pinging @
  Martinp (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Can we have
  WP:PPDRV, please. The final !vote in the discussion does not make sense to me given my searches. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. Sorry for the late reply, @GiantSnowman:. I don't have access to the Danish Newspaper Archive, as you have to be enrolled at an institution for higher learning and can only access the archive at the some libraries. I have never heard of Mølsgaard despite having substantial knowledge on Danish football.--Bocanegra (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• relist One admin felt more time was needed. I think that was reasonable. There wasn't enough meaningful comments after that relist to justify the close so soon after the relist. I'll note that "delete" with the same discussion but a week after the relist would have my full support. Hobit (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Pragmatic weak endorse, with thanks to Bocanegra for the reply, and for the PPDRV. While the early close of the relist seems to have been unnecessary and unhelpful, the combination of the discussion at the AfD and here has failed to uncover enough meaningful coverage to write anything but the barest stub. Relisting now would be process-wonkery. If someone at some point does uncover meaningful enough sources, they can recreate.
  Martinp (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist or if that isn't a pragmatic choice, soft delete might be workable in light of Liz's comments about AfD closers and sportspeople AfD participants. That is, even with three deletes, none of them argue that they have definitive knowledge of the lack of sourcing that is the theory under which it's being sent for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist because of the closure soon after relisting. I don't know whether it helps that I have been able to establish that he played for Akademisk Boldklub at the time of his international appearance in 1937 ("AB" notation at [1] and [2], redlinked at the Danish Wikipedia article on the club); database listings for 1938–39, 1941–42, 1943–44. But no, I don't have access to the newspaper archive. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  According to this he was a member of the Danish league champions team in 1937. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, User:Goldsztajn! With that we know that he must have played for Akademisk Boldklub. the top league, in the top tier of Danish Football at the same time as his national team appearance. Which would make further research easier. Not that further sources really have any bearing on the close being correct - but that we are still having such quite preliminary research going on, it does go to that the close was premature. Nfitz (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. As per
  WP:RELIST, it is open to admins to close a relisted debate if they feel a consensus has been formed; it is not mandatory to wait for another 7 days. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse as a fair reading of consensus. Article should be able to be re-created if sources can be found which demonstrate the GNG is met. Jogurney (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The claim is made in every Danish athlete AfD that potential sources exist among string-match hits in those inaccessible Danish newspaper archives, and therefore we must presume they contain SIGCOV. That reasoning is completely unsupported by our notability guidelines and should be ignored every time unless an editor can actually vouch that a specific source contains SIGCOV. NEXIST isn't based on "#GHits", so trotting out the same argument is even more ridiculous when the hits in question are on a database that no one participating at AfD will be able to access for 20+ years. Xplicit and other sports AfD admins, not to mention Nfitz, are surely aware these black box claims of Danish coverage never go anywhere, so it was the correct decision to close at this point rather than waste more editors' time discussing ultimately unfalsifiable sources. JoelleJay (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 09:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - whilst it would have been ideal for the resisting to run a further full week, in this case I don't think it would have made any example. No issues with then restoring and draftifying if editors believe they have sufficient sources to show notability. GiantSnowman 09:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd just like to also shed light on the player, so you people are deleting a player who played for
  Copenhagen Cup in 1936 and 1942. Is mentioned in three different books in Danish football. No one has bothered to run the newspaper archives. It's really very poor, he would easily pass GNG if people wanted to do the research. Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  But sporting achievements mean nothing when not supported by significant coverage in reliable sources... GiantSnowman 18:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Upstairs Downstairs Bears (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Where to begin with an AfD where just about everything was wrong? Let's start by looking at the !votes:

• The nominator claimed that this was a driveby creation by someone whose other edits were limited to adding categories etc. This is substantially false. The article was "created" as a nearly-empty stub by such an IP user, yes, but it was substantially written by a long-standing editor (myself). This !vote should have been disregarded as so misleading, it can simply be considered incorrect.
• Another user claimed that this series is Teletoon 'between full shows' filler. This is blatantly false. This is a standard-length series of 13 half-hours, or 26 half-episodes. Teletoon's actual filler shows have "episodes" of something like 2 minutes each, sometimes even less. Once again, this !vote should have disregarded, this time as utterly wrong.
• The remaining contributor to the discussion simply claimed the show is non-notable without making any arguments for that. This !vote should have been disregarded as... an actual vote, contrary to deletion policy.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. There was no attempt whatsoever made by any of the discussion participants to look for sources, which should have been a gigantic red flag for the closer... but apparently wasn't. Here are the sources I've found:

• A full article specifically about the TV series (not even the source material!). Do you know how rare this is for similar series (especially for ones this old, given how many articles on lesser-known media have simply disappeared over the years)? https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/8045917.bear-loving-author-sees-books-come-to-life-on-television/
• The following source was already used in the article as I recall, but I'm adding it here for completeness as it is an excellent non-primary source full of information about the series (one has to wonder why it was conveniently, I mean completely, ignored in the AfD): http://www.toonhound.com/upstairs.htm In case anyone is wondering about its
  WP:SPS reliability, here's a quote from http://www.toonhound.com/aboutme.htm
  : I've been quoted on DVD releases and popped up on a couple of "extras", I've written for the BBC and others, and I am often contacted by the media for cartoon comments and info. [...] Best of all, the site is recommended reading for a number of academies, colleges and courses. Also note the author's industry experience, and the "PC Press" images on that page for the website itself.

• A mini-review, from a source considered unreliable for news but not necessarily for non-news articles, particularly ones from years ago when its reliability was less questioned: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-35932/Upstairs-Downstairs-Bears.html (Found through https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/sitemaparchive/day_20010404.html, but for some reason the article does not show a date.)
• A number of articles in trade publications with production details of the series. Again, many similar shows (especially the true "filler" the other editor mentioned) do not have this!
  • For the year production started: https://kidscreen.com/1998/11/01/23473-19981101/
  • For a full description of the series, including its expected delivery month and overall budget: https://kidscreen.com/2000/01/01/27630-20000101/
  • For its adjusted episodic budget: https://playbackonline.ca/2000/10/16/30173-20001016/
  • For an example of international distribution: https://www.c21media.net/news/israeli-pre-school-channel-on-uk-shopping-spree/

And all of this is in addition to the numerous primary sources with detailed information about the show, which one of the discussion participants tacitly acknowledged by incorrectly describing them as "unacceptable" and implying they were used to show notability rather than... detailed information about the show. Modernponderer (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Endorse -
  WP:TLDR McClenon mobile (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • User:McClenon mobile, every word that I've written here is highly relevant to the question of overturning the AfD. The first part covers the deletion discussion itself, while the second part is a list of sources and explains how they show notability. If you have a suggestion for how this could be condensed without losing valuable information, it could be implemented, but otherwise I ask you to please actually read what I have written as your current response seems highly unconstructive. Modernponderer (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also pinging User:Robert McClenon... what happened to It will not be used to !vote in project space.? Modernponderer (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• relist This was very much TL;DR, writing this much causes more harm than gain to your cause. That said, we have sources worth discussing and no !votes, including the nom, that really addressed our inclusion criteria. Now that we have sources to discuss, we can move forward in a more reasonable way. Hobit (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TLDR is ridiculous for an encyclopedia of all places.) Modernponderer (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • You just needed to say "I'd like this reviewed, the nominator and the !votes didn't address our inclusion guidelines and had factual errors (e.g. this wasn't 'between full shows' fillers, it is a standard-length series of 13 half-hours, or 26 half-episodes.). Further, there were good sources in the article and I've found some new sources ([3], [4]). Based on that, I'd ask that the deletion discussion be reopened so a fuller discussion can be had." would have stated 90% of your argument in about 20% of the space. And recall this place is staffed by volunteers--long things just tend to not get read. If you really wanted, you could have gone with your full argument in a collapsed section and something like what I wrote as non-collapsed summary. Hobit (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changing to restore, no prejudice against a new AfD. Basically the same as the "treat as soft delete" I'd missed how old the AfD was. As always, I believe requiring the use of draft space should never be a part of a required process (it's broken, slow, and is designed to be optional). Hobit (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Daniel should wait the full 168 hours before closing low attendance discussions.

Endorse. It was unanimous agreement to delete. Now, post AfD deletion nearly a year later, if someone disagrees, follow advice at

WP:THREE. It only takes two to demonstrate notability, maybe three, but throw lots at us and more than likely you are wasting the time of anyone who gives you their time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• WP:THREE is almost exactly what I did here with the first 3 sources. The trade publications provide additional detail, but obviously aren't the focus of the source list. (Speaking of wasting time, I really feel like I'm being trolled at this point...) Modernponderer (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I count eight sources. With the fourth, you have failed WP:THREE.

  Start a draft use the best three sources. If you can’t help but add more sources, then use the draft talk page to list the best three. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On reviewing the article at the time of the AfD, change !vote to overturn, defective AfD. The article had good sources, and not a single participant spoke to the sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse -
  Too long, didn't read
  . I have changed the provision about use of the alternate account so that I can make an immediate entry on a mobile device. I have not yet read the appeal. I have read the AFD, and I endorse the closure. I will read the appeal within 48 hours, while it is still open, which almost certainly will not change my opinion on the closure. If the appellant wants to submit a draft for review,
• Allow Review of Draft, but only when there is actually a draft rather than a speech. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USERFICATION if you want to see a draft? Or are you seriously suggesting that I should start over simply because... my "speech" was too long for your sensibilities? Modernponderer (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Overturn to draftify as that was a defective AfD, plain and simple; it should have been relisted instead of deleted right off the bat. I expected better than "this is not notable!" and virtually nothing else as a deletion reason. However, since it is too old to reopen this specific discussion, I think draftification would be a more appropriate remedy to allow the article to be rebuilt with better sourcing. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Apart from being closed 3-4 hours, it was not defective, and there was no good reason for it to be relisted. Although only three participants, all three were clear and strong reasons to delete. Based on their comments, the sources were not GNG-compliant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The only comment in that AfD I'm seeing that addresses sources is "TV listings and network sites for the show are unacceptable". The nom and other other !vote don't mention sources at all AFICT. I tend not to read "it's notable" or "it's non-notable" as policy/guideline-compliant !votes so maybe that's where we differ in what we're seeing? Hobit (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I, perhaps poorly, inferred that the statements addressing notability implied the existing and available sources were examined and found to be below worth mentioning. A temp undelete will resolve this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Treat as soft delete and allow recreation/improvement. This has been closed sufficiently long ago (last year) that a relist is inappropriate, and yet this is how most under-participated AfDs go: no one bothered to look for sources, so it got deleted based on who showed up. Modernponderer, please take it under advisement that you are the biggest obstacle to this being recreated at this point. You don't need to argue with DRV participants, you just need to provide sources that the outcome was wrong and leave it at that. None of us were the ones who opined in the AfD or deleted it, we're just here to help clean up messes, so ranting in our general direction and then being irritated that you got told "TL;DR" is not winning your case: editors have attention spans, so stand up, speak up, and shut up--that is, a good DRV appeal should be about a paragraph succinctly listing why the outcome is wrong. Daniel seems to be a reasonable admin, but when he's given a lame, under-participated AfD like that to close, this is what happens, so don't take it out on him, either. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Modernponderer - The part where you said that you had written the initial article was in the content that I said I would read within 48 hours. I mean to provide a draft that will pass review. The original article was found to be lacking, and ranting won't change that. Provide a draft for review. I will read the overly long post within 36 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator comment/question: If any appeal over a certain length automatically comes off as a rant, I apologize though my intention was simply to make an ironclad case. But it is incredibly frustrating that both User:Robert McClenon and User:SmokeyJoe keep saying "the close was correct" when I've pointed out that 2 of the 3 !votes had clear factual errors, and the remainder of the discussion was pure voting without any argumentation or research – all exactly the type of thing policy expects closers to disregard.

In any case, would you support

WP:DRAFTIFICATION? I can do a thorough rewrite of the article using the new sources, but I don't think it's fair to ask me to start from scratch with an article I've already contributed to. Modernponderer (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Request temporary undeletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I have read the overly long appeal at least twice. Here are my comments:
  • • I stand by my Endorsement of the close.
    • The appellant states that factually erroneous statements were made by the participants. I don't see that as a reason for an appeal, and I don't see a guideline that the closer is required to verify the accuracy of the statements made by participants. A requirement that closers verify the accuracy of statements would make it much more difficult to close AFDs. If the appellant wants to impose such a requirement, they can discuss this at a talk page or a policy page, rather than in this
      Deletion Review
      . I don't see a guideline that says that factual errors by participants are a basis for appealing a close, although significant new information is a basis for recreating a deleted page. The appellant has not shown any error in the close, and their arguments to that effect seem to be just an unfocused diversion.
    • The appellant says that the participants did not look for sources. They are not required to look for sources. The appellant says that the failure of the participants to look for sources should have been a concern by the closer. I don't see a guideline to that effect, and such a guideline would be a bad idea.
    • The appellant is providing a list of sources that amounts to a URL Dump, which is insulting to the reviewers, saying that they are too important and busy to put the sources into a reviewable draft.
    • The appellant has the right either to ask for undeletion into draft space at
      Requests for Undeletion
      , or for temporary undeletion, which will have the same effect. That wouldn't have required 568 words.
    • This reply is long because the appeal was overly long and the appellant wanted me to read and assess it.
    • Maybe the appellant wants to change the procedures to put more of an obligation on the community to find sources. That not only would be a bad idea, but also isn't relevant here.
    • The appellant does seem to have a reasonable case to request the deleted article for rework, and the handwaving and blowing of smoke distract from that request.
• Temporary Undelete, please. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse there was unanimous support for the deletion of the article at the time. While I think a relist would have been more appropriate with only two delete votes plus the nom, I don’t see the purpose of reopening the AFD almost a full year later. I also vote to allow recreation of the article. The AFD had barely more than the
  WP:REFUND. Should the recreated article not have sufficient sourcing, then it can be sent to AFD again. Frank Anchor 17:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - In reviewing the temporarily undeleted article, I now see that the appellant has a reasonable case either for a relist or to recreate, subject to another AFD. The appellant didn't state that reasonable case, and instead had a lot of irrelevant or unreasonable issues. The reasonable case is that the appellant was one of the authors of the article, but not the originator, and so was not notified by Twinkle, and was on a wikibreak of a few months at the time of the AFD, and therefore did not have an opportunity to dispute the statements made by the other editors. That is the real issue, not that the closer should have discounted their !votes. The appellant should create a draft based on the temporarily undeleted article and any sources, with appropriate additions to the text, and we, the DRV editors, can review it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The close was the correct close based on the input from the editors, and the original statement by the appellant was too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to draftspace. I agree with Jclemens that we can't really fault the closer here: when there's a
  WP:REFUND is generally willing to restore deleted articles to userspace or draftspace, so if you find yourself in this situation again, you may find that making a request there is easier than making a request here.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong endorse but allow recreation: Sorry, I am not buying into this screed. However, I do see potential for an article on this subject, so we should allow the creation of a new article on the same subject.
  talk) 22:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • WP:CIVIL just having an off day?) Modernponderer (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Note: I've struck out User:SmokeyJoe's duplicate !vote, which may confuse the closer. Pinging for full disclosure... Modernponderer (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modernponderer, nobody who has any business at all closing a deletion review would be in the slightest bit confused by this. I can see that you care a lot about the outcome here but I'd love it if you'd consider not trying to manage the discussion.—S Marshall T/C 22:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore, as a defective AfD: the close was in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus was a poor fit for the evidence, as can occasionally happen with poorly-attended deletion discussions. Dronebogus, the nominator, hasn't always edited attentively and hasn't always shown the best of judgment. I have a lot of sympathy for Daniel who closed the discussion in accordance with the consensus which was exactly what we expect.—S Marshall T/C 22:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• About the original close: A number of comments here have been made to the effect of "the closer had no choice but to close as delete". I absolutely disagree – the only correct "close" for an AfD with two !votes besides the nominator's, all with very short statements showing a lack of thorough investigation, is to relist as many times as permitted by policy. Doing otherwise is precisely the type of action that leads to "defective AfDs". (And yes, closing several hours before the AfD period ends just adds insult to injury.) Modernponderer (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You are overly emphatic. The nominator, User:Dronebogus, might take on board the advice to improve the quality of their deletion nominations or not do them at all, and the closer, User:Daniel might accept the advice be more discerning on low quality nominations and !votes.

  You would do better to politely ask the closer, and if rebuffed by the closer, to request userfication and follow advice at

  WP:THREE (8 is not almost exactly 3). SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

After the deletion, he acted in 2 projects as a lead actor in Jatt Brothers and Lover (2022 film) also nominated for PTC Punjabi Film Awards.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} Jksparkle (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Review of Draft - I haven't checked the references, because the reviewer will do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• undelete without prejudice against a new AfD AfC is never a required process and there is prima facie case that the reasons for deletion have been overcome. As a warning, if it gets deleted at AfD again, the de facto bar to recreation goes up. (Apparently it's Latin day here at Hobit's home...). Hobit (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have temporarily undeleted the article so that it can be examined in this deletion review. — Newslinger talk 05:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfD, restore for addition of new information Classic case of new info coming to light supporting more notability. Since the new sources substantially post-date the AfD discussion, it appears to have been right at the time but newer coverage supports re-creation. Jclemens (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete due to new sources that may overcome the reason for deletion. Add the new sources quickly, and allow a few weeks before another AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If the temporarily undeleted article is expanded, not just adding the references but also adding the entires to the Filmography, while this DRV is still running, I will review the draft while this DRV is still running. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

"significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" -- the subject (James Chapman) is the author of an article that has gotten a significant amount of traction in Internet memes (e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/comments/o3y52n/a_daily_mail_article_from_december_2000_reupload/, which has 20,000 upvotes--quite a lot for Reddit). Links on other web pages to this article discussing the error Mr. Chapman made are now dead-end links, which is not a good experience for users or for Wikipedia. alaskanjackal (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Review of Draft - The possibility of better information was noted in the AFD. The red links to Chapman are not in themselves a reason to recreate. They can be taken care of either with a redirect to something or by searching and destroying. But the draft can be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you have new sources that meet the requirements of
  WP:RS? If not, there really isn't anything for us to do. Hobit (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

President of Japan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

no valid reason for deletion. There are many arguments for keeping, see discussion. --Privybst (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment. Wow, that was a quick trip straight to DR without even asking the closer a question first. Consensus is not simply about the number of !votes, although in this case the clear majority preferred to delete. However, consensus is also not about the sheer number of arguments. It has to do with the quality of the arguments. Respondents wanted to delete because, among other things, it was misleading. The DAB page claimed that "President of Japan" could refer to things that it does not. As one commenter noted, it imposed American systems on non-Americans. Are you going to create a "Major of Japan" page? Are you going to create a "CEO of Japan" page? "Grand Duke of Japan"? The delete !votes had number and their arguments had weight. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was that particular DAB's entire content.

President of Japan may refer to:

• President of the House of Councillors, one of two heads of the legislative branch of government in Japan
• The President of Japan: Sakurazaka Mantarō
  , a 16-volume manga series by Yoshiki Hidaka

==See also==

• Prime Minister of Japan, the head of the executive branch of government in Japan

That's it. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doczilla I'm sorry I didn't write to you first. This is the first time I'm asking for a deletion review. Privybst (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus While it's clear there is a desire to change the current article, there are some really compelling
  WP:ATD arguments in the discussion; a redirect to the mentioned Manga series seems to be a minimum reasonable outcome. I'd like to see the original DAB page as it was nominated, but this appears a classic case of a lot of people with weak arguments vs. a small cadre of people who see it a very different, and policy-based, way. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn to no consensus. Fascinating to read it imposed American systems on non-Americans as a reason for deletion when that is literally what our entire rōmaji title system on English Wikipedia actually does. But to this specific matter, the closer does not seem to take into account what purpose dab/redirect pages serve. For example, we often create redirects of incorrect spellings or alternate transliterations of titles. The purpose of those is not to make an ontological declaration of the superiority of those alternatives. It's to make it easier for people who already don't know something (like, that's why they're looking it up) to actually find something useful among our existing articles. Arguments that don't take this basic fact about the purpose of dab/redirects into account should carry no weight in the assessment of whether or not to delete a dab/redirect. The only open question was whether the dab/redirect possibilities were plausible, which was addressed by Dekimasu's citations to reliable sources referring to Japan's "president" when they meant "prime minister", and the identification of a literally similar article titled "The President of Japan". Taking issue with the formatting is an editing dispute, not a valid reason to (close as) delete. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. I do not usually participate in these and can't remember the last time I closed a deletion discussion, but it is somewhat disconcerting to see the closer argue that the close was based on the quality of the arguments, since no policy in favor of deletion was cited with the exception of one reference to all of
  WP:D it does not disambiguate and users are unlikely to need this dab to navigate." It was never explained what might lead one to think "it does not disambiguate", but the keep !votes described why the page was performing the work of disambiguation and thus I would not read this discussion as consensus to delete. (As an aside, please do mention things to closers first when possible.) Dekimasuよ! 08:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thanks for the aside, in the future if I want to open a deletion review I'll write to closer first. Privybst (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus the "delete" votes have a slight majority but there are no solid policy-based reasons for delete. Meanwhile the "keep" votes correctly point out that this DAB page allows for a somewhat common misconception (that there is a "president" of Japan) and allows users to find the leader(s) of Japan's government. I would be open to relisting as well, but I don't see any arguments being made in the next week that weren't already made. Frank Anchor 13:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus as per Frank Anchor and Dekimasu. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I see a consensus which the closer respected. I also ivoted delete in the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There are arguments for a redirect as an ATD, but that was discussed in the AfD and did not gain consensus. DRV is not AfD round two: we are not here to discuss ATDs, but only to determine whether consensus was correctly assessed. In my view, it was: the arguments for keeping this as a dab page were weak. Sandstein 07:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The arguments for delete are very significantly weaker than the policy based arguments for keeping or disambiguating. It's worth noting that several redirects like this have been discussed at RfD recently and have not been deleted there. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep (or no consensus) especially given how it was pointed out that a manga called "(The) President of Japan" existed and several media outlets who actually erroneously referred to Shinzo Abe as a president. The Keepers very well demonstrated that the dab page would be helpful for others, while the deletion rationale "implausible as Japan has no president, everybody knows that!" was ripped apart as baseless with evidence. It does not matter if Japan does not in fact have a president if it is demonstrated that some people legitimately mistake some Japanese politicians as presidents. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC The keep arguments, at the end at least, were stronger and the the numbers aren't enough to overcome that. But nor were the keep arguments so strong that we can get to keep. Hobit (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Someone searching for President of Japan is probably a young person who needs pointing to a basic article about the political structure of Japan. They are vanishingly unlikely to be looking for a comic book.—S Marshall T/C 19:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the page should be prefaced with "Japan does not have a president; its head of government is the Prime Minister of Japan." Ovinus (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Both delete and keep !voters presented not unreasonable and policy-based arguments. While delete !voters did slightly outnumber !keep ones (5:3 by my count), that's hardly consensus, especially since 3 of the 5 did not engage with the keep arguments on the role of DAB. (That's not a criticism of them, just that it makes it harder to see a consensus to delete!)
  Martinp (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Me (the original closer) and

@Mellohi: I'm not contesting the fact that it was a consensus for keep, just the way it was closed. scope_creep^Talk 14:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which was exactly what I meant to say. Tweaked nomination statement a little. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My first question is Scope creep: Why does it matter? Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's the only question. The result and the reasoning are there for all to see and are apparently undisputed. We all have better things to do than quibble over such trivialities. WaggersTALK 15:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close Wrong venue. Closure was clearly correct and not in dispute. If you think someone is making improper statements in closures, that can be taken to other venues such as ANI. Conversely, if you are upset that someone is overriding your closures, that can be taken to ANI as well. I'd question why ANI would be used for such trivialities as well, but this isn't a DRV issue. Smartyllama (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close per above. For what its worth, a "speedy keep" closure as a withdrawn nom would not have been appropriate because not all of the delete (or
  WP:ATD) viewpoints were removed (there was still one "redirect" vote standing). In the end, the article would be kept either way. User:Scope creep's conduct is an ANI issue, not a DRV issue. Frank Anchor 18:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC) [reply
  ]

• Changed to endorse as the below votes do show there is some merit to this being on DRV. After the additional sources were added, three of the four non-keep opinions (including the nom) were crossed out and several additional “keep” votes were added making a
  WP:SNOW keep reasonable. I disagree with the closing comments but there is no other way this discussion would close even if it were relisted for several more days Frank Anchor 03:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Relist per
  WP:SK#NOT, "snow closes" may be controversial and additional care is warranted. This AfD was discussed at Mellohi's Talk page, where it appears to be controversial due to two experienced AfD participants raising concerns about the close. Courtesy ping to Netherzone, who participated in the Talk page discussion after this DRV started. Beccaynr (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result was keep. It seems to be

(non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The result was keep, as the article was improved. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Mellohi! overdid the flowery opinion in the closing statement. Closers, but especially NAC-ers, should avoid injecting their personal opions in closing statements. Opinions, like everything in a close, should come from the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jenny Wright Lawnmower Man publicity photo.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Per WP:Non-free_content#Images_2, retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable. The image is a crop from a publicity photo for a movie. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• To satisfy the whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance part of the criterion there would need to be some content about how her appearance was relevant to her notability, but there is nothing even close to that currently in the Jenny Wright article (the article the NFUR on refers to). If you can add relevant content that supports the image then I'd be happy to send it to FFD for evaluation, but as it stands the speedy deletion was correct. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah. Generally we ask for reliably-sourced commentary in cases where we're contemplating making an exception to the items at
  Cryptic 02:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Wikidemon, what is your interpretation of the language of this exception to the policy which you added in 2007? [5] Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For clarity it is not an exception to the policy and as far as I can tell no one editor has been blessed (or cursed) with the authority to unilaterally declare an exception. As NFC is often confusing and contentious that guideline page contains examples of where something would not qualify, this is trying to update that example to ensure it covers the concept within the policy "that would serve the same encyclopaedic purpose", i.e. just assuming a freshly taken photo would be able to show the point being made may in some circumstances falls short. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I found the 2007 comments when the language was first added to policy. The interpretation here does seem consistent. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Once again to be clear that is not adding any language to the Policy. The policy was the same before and after that language. That is adding some clarifying points to some examples within a guideline on interpretation of the policy. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion for the reasons given by
  WT:NFCC in the past and consensus always seems to be that non-free images are simply not used because someone looks differently now then perhaps they did in their prime. Finally, one last thing to consider is that even the article about the film mentions Wright only twice by name and makes no mention of her appearance playing a part in her being cast; moreover, there's no sourced content about the appearance of any actor cast in the film being one of the reasons why they were chosen. I can't seen how any of the brief mentions of Wright and her association with film close even to being a sufficient justification (at least in my opinion) for using non-free use of a publicity photo of Wright from that film. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Marchjuly, what about a publicity photo from her most notable film, Near Dark? Jenny Wright stars as the beautiful and sensual Mae.[6]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolya Butternut (talk • contribs) 03:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PINGFIX. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • It was a crop - roughly the left half, sans border - of a larger version of this image. It was tagged with {{
        Cryptic 23:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • @
          Cryptic: My apologies if my post above was confusing, but my F7 comment wasn't about the File:Jenny Wright Lawnmower Man publicity photo.jpg (i.e. the file that was deleted), but was instead about another different Alamy file of the same actress from 1987 that Kolya Butternut was asking about. I'm assuming that one wouldn't also be allowed per F7 for the same reason as the "Lawnmower Man" photo of Wright you found on Alamy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Well, you already had most of the information you need for that.
            With the caveat that it's been six or seven years since I was speedying large numbers of images, it's rare in my experience for any current F7 to be successfully disputed. ("Current", because about a quarter of F7a's were worth retagging and writing a valid non-free-use rationale; that subcriterion's since been repealed.) For F7c and F7d, disputing usually doesn't work because they resemble situations like the Lawnmower Man image here: they're disputed poorly. If an image is tagged F7 because a free image could be created, and disputed because one hasn't yet - or, even worse, hasn't been found yet - the image is going to get deleted every time. A reasonable dispute, like "that person is widely-noted as a recluse" or "the building may still be standing, but the exterior's been remodeled since this photo was taken", will usually get declined and sent for discussion at FFD.
            Validly-tagged F7b's, on the other hand - that is, where there isn't already sourced commentary about the image itself in the article - just about never get declined. (Much, much more commonly they're found tagged as
            Cryptic 02:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• Endorse as I don't see how she is different from the many living people who have no images of themselves in their articles due no free images of themselves being made/available yet. Maybe if she dies soon, the situation could be different, but not now. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as other photo's which could be out there (and free) or could be taken would likely serve the same purpose. Even if it were accepted that for role X the way she looked played was a significant enough factor that without seeing her it would be difficult to understand the contribution of that, then the chances are that it would mean the picture maybe significant for the article of the film/show/whatever rather than the actress. The way she looked would need to be significant "force" across her career (or good portion) to warrant discussing or showing in the article. Claims like she was cast because she was considered beautiful (say) are unlikely to cut it, since it's not a particular difficult concept to understand --81.100.164.154 (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I was the one who tagged the image for deletion. This a run-of-the-mill
  WP:NFCC#1 violation for living people. -- Whpq (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

This page was deleted due to speedy deletion which I don’t believe I got a chance to contest. I would love to get pointers as to what exactly was wrong with the article (as I checked both A7 and G11 and don’t agree with both of them). I’d like to have this deletion reverted if possible so I can fix the issues you have with the article. If restoration is not possible, I would like to get the page I created restored as a draft so I won’t lose my work and would be able to improve it before posting it again. I tried contacting the deleted administrator and got no answer. Oryanmoshe (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, though JBW has edited a few times since you asked him, it's still only been about seven hours. I don't usually feel guilty if I put off answering similar requests on my own talk page so long as I respond within a day - you can't really assume that because he has enough time to do anything at all, that he has enough contiguous time and attention to give you a thorough answer.
  Anyway, on the merits, I agree with the A7 - unless someone can argue with a straight face that this constitutes significant coverage, since there wasn't a claim of importance in the article text - but the G11 is a stretch. I'm inclined to undelete and draftify. —
  Cryptic 22:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I would add a correct claim of importance that satisfies the rules described in A7 exactly (I thought that the claim of importance was implicit and understandable, but I will add an explicit one as well to follow the rules)

  If possible, undeletion would be great as it would allow my to quickly fix the A7 issue without hassle.

  If you do feel some things need to change in regards to G11 I would be more than happy to do the changes, but would need some pointers for specific issues you can pinpoint that sound as unambiguous advertising.

  Thanks for the quick professional reply! Oryanmoshe (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. This very definitely did not meet G11 - the article was a neutral attempt at an encyclopaedia article and was not at all promotional; Praxidicae needs to reread the criteria again if they think that was an acceptable tagging. A7 however is a different matter, "The products are developed hand in hand with [...] government organizations [...]" and "CHATS was showcased [at the] HITS K9 Conference" are the only two statements that I can interpret as assertions of significance, and that's being generous. While I might not have tagged for A7, I can fully understand why others would and I'm not going to argue doing so was wrong, certainly it wasn't wrong enough to overturn. I see absolutely no reason not to allow someone who wants to work on this to do so in draft space though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have restored the page and moved it to
  before deletion have convinced me that the topic does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JBW (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse as A7 only. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as A7, having read the draft. I would decline the draft if it were submitted for review, as not telling what third parties say about the company. In my opinion, G11 is overused when notability is what is questioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of an A7. Deleting admins should not “stand by” A7 deletions. Alternatively, Draftify (note, already done) and remind all of
  WP:DRAFTOBJECT; the author or anyone a non-COI editor may move it back for it to be tested at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  No. User:Oryanmoshe has a COI with the topic. They should not have written the article in mainspace. They may not mainspace the draft. They may edit the draft, and submit to AfC. If back in mainspace, they may only make suggestions on the talk page. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse A7, draftification is great casualdejekyll 14:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Moot now that the article has been draftified. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject of the article is now a national legislator, passing

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 15:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original deletion, but restore article given sources which show notability. GiantSnowman 15:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This did not need a DRV. Feel free to just recreate the article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, good to know this. I had assumed only speedy deletes could be recreated. Joofjoof (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No admin would G4 a recreated article citing those sources. The old version was a four-sentence stub, barely distinguishable from a bot-created database entry, that hadn't had so much as a word in its prose changed since the day it was created as a draft on 8 September 2019. Restoring it won't do a thing to help write an article that explains his current notability, though I'll userfy it for you without waiting for this week-long formal DRV to close if you really want it. —
  Cryptic 15:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thanks

  Cryptic, you can go ahead and userfy it. Joofjoof (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It's at

  Cryptic 02:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse but allow recreation based on the new sources. Per
  User:Cryptic, there is little (if any) value to restoring the article history. Frank Anchor 16:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - Restored article in user space says nothing about
  political notability and would be deleted again. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The article in user space is the old deleted version. I think it is reasonable to assume that User:Joofjoof would add in sourced content related to political notability before moving it into main space. Frank Anchor 12:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. As closer, I have no problem with the idea of recreating the article as long as it's a real article, not the thing already deleted. I see that Joofjoof has already recreated the article without awaiting the results of this deletion review, though. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original deletion as deletion is not a ban from recreating the article, just don't merely copy the deleted content and do nothing to fix it. Since the article has now been resurrected, this DRV is now moot. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter's (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

• Overturn to no consensus (or, more specifically, "consensus to keep, no consensus to retarget"). The closer correctly realized that there wasn't a consensus to delete, but I don't see a consensus on the secondary issue of whether to retarget: Tavix made a reasonable point, Mdewman6 reasonably countered that point, and no other editor weighed in. When a discussion consists of two editors disagreeing, no consensus is the only possible closure unless one side's arguments are clearly at odds with policy (which wasn't the case here). And since this isn't
  one of the cases where no consensus can result in a retarget, the status quo should stand. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• FWIW (it probably doesn't change the reading of the discussion anyhow, but...), I don't much remember opining on this one – but I think it unlikely I had an opinion as to the exact target, especially given that I don't have an opinion on that currently. Overturn to no consensus, default to status quo, even given that. J947 † ^edits 06:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to consensus to keep, no consensus to retarget per Extraordinary Writ. Tavix and Mdewman6 both made reasonable points and nobody else supported or countered either so no consensus is the only option. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn not a good reading of the ivote discussion. Should be no consensus. Lightburst (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn. Non-obvious close with inadequate explanation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Extraordinary Writ. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions for viola: A to B (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this AfD as "keep", although I could be persuaded to drop this to "no consensus" or to relist the AfD. However, my close was reverted by the nominator -

I disagree that the "Keep" votes were in any way stronger, nor did any of the people I responded to follow up on my criticisms. Gerda Arendt in particular provides little to no rationale other than "it's useful", "old", and that they admit they're biased. The only vote to make any sound argument is PianoDan, but I disagree with him as one of the main issues isn't the perceived notability of music for viola, just that having a list of something at such a macro-level isn't what Wikipedia is here for. If the list only had pieces for which Wikipedia had articles for, then I would not be opposed to keeping a single page (without it being spread over the current eight it is now; no other list on Wikipedia does that aside from this one as further proof of its indiscriminateness). However, that would not be the best move as categories can achieve the same basic goal of organizing articles on Wikipedia about viola music.

Furthermore, your decision to close it as "Keep" rather than relist it (the option I would've chosen as a vote was made recently, and the discussion was still ongoing) raises some questions. Not even all of the Delete votes (which outnumbered the Keep, mind you) simply pointed to a policy as you said. And even though some did, that just shows that the consensus is against indisciminate collections of repertoire such as this one in which less words suit the argument perfectly, rather than a wordy non-policy based reason to keep. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Not a single policy-based deletion !vote to be found. "listcruft" isn't policy, and IINFO doesn't apply. Sandstein should know better. IINFO has four subsections; if you can't cite one, especially when discussing a list-class article, it's probably just an IDONTLIKEIT vote. "It's too long and comprehensive" is an inherent admission that, if consensus permitted, the list could be trimmed to notable entries, and thus, deletion is not the only option. Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are four parts listed at IINFO, but those are not the only ones that constitute indiscriminate. You don't need to cite a specific one for something to be described as indiscriminate. Editor consensus has shown that overly large lists or very specific lists are indiscriminate. In fact there's other policies for this:

  WP:NOT DIRECTORY which overtly specifies no simple listings. If there was a list of viola concertos or such that had only notable entries (e.g., cited/Wikipedia articles), then maybe I could live with that. Every viola piece ever, though, is silly. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Tellingly you correctly cite "consensus has shown" rather than "policy-based consensus has shown". NOTDIR doesn't apply either, as no one is suggesting it was or should be used as a directory. Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, consensus has shown that the policy

  WP:IINFO can be applied to lists. I can find successful deletions of lists from 2006 that use IINFO as a rationale. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Because IINFO has been misapplied for at least that long? Jclemens (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, because the community rightfully believes that indiscriminate listings fall under IINFO. A list of viola pieces, with the composer, date, etc., is data. A list of every viola piece ever without regards to notability or even types of compositions is indiscriminate. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If the community thinks that's "indiscriminate," then the community is wrong and needs to read

  WP:DISCRIMINATE. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Cool, and that's an essay that I and a substantial portion of the community disagree with. Other synonyms for indiscriminate include general, broad-based, or nonselective. Those can also be used to describe what people might use when calling a list indiscriminate. They wouldn't be wrong in doing so when a list such as this aims to include every viola piece ever. The essay boxes itself into one interpretation of a definition that not many agree with, and one that the actual policy itself disagrees with. An organized list of updates for Windows 10 or such would certainly be discriminate by the essay's definition. But it would be indiscriminate by the policy's own words. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - User:Why? I Ask - If you don't know the gender of a user and don't want to use the singular they, you can always use their name rather than guessing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon One-hundred percent my mistake; I swore that I saw someone refer to them with male pronouns one time. I must have misremembered. My honest mistake. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Endorse - There does not really appear to be a consensus to Keep, and maybe the close should be overturned to No Consensus, but what is the point to that? Duh. And this appeal is only being considered because the closer chose voluntarily to request Deletion Review, when they could reasonably instead have reported the reversion of the closure at
  salmonids for the appellant. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I would be perfectly fine with a No Consensus (although a re-list would be preferred considering new comments were trickling in). The issue is that deletion outcomes set precedents, especially considering that not many repertoire lists have been nominated for deletion. It was my mistake to revert the outcome even though I disagreed with it. I figured if I did it quickly enough and re-listed for a more clear consensus, there wouldn't be an issue; I really didn't want to waste more time with a deletion review (especially considering I felt the rationale for closing as a Keep over No Consensus or Re-listing was exceptionally weak). Why? I Ask (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse because Ritchie had a reasonable close after a reading of rationales. Two of the delete arguments were based on the essay:
  WP:LISTCRUFT and the others were of the driveby variety. The keep rationales were comprehensive. One could argue for a no consensus close, but that distinction would not change the outcome of keep. Lightburst (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  And I would like a "No Consensus" close if you had read the above. Either way, several Keep votes also neglected to base their arguments on any policy. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep close, NC also possible. There were reasonable if debatable arguments for keep. There were a few reasonable if debatable arguments for delete based largely on being just an indiscriminate list of information. There were numerous delete arguments quoting "listcruft", which can be assigned minimal weight: "listcruft" is a nonspecific, pejorative word, at best indicating uselessness or superfluousness, at worst just IDONTLIKEIT. It is given 10 possible meanings, quite different in nature, in the essay WP:LISTCRUFT. Absent greater clarity (and evidence of actually engaging with the list and/or the article), it is reasonable for the closer to discount poorly articulated votes like these.
  Martinp (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse – per WP:CSC, every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia, and that unequivocally rejects the "indiscriminate collection" argument. The close reflects good judgement in keeping this list as it is a notable encyclopedic topic with value to our readers. Atsme 💬 📧 10:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It does now that I've edited it; it didn't at the time. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (keep or no consensus), although I read “no consensus” with “delete” not being a possible reading. Advise
  WP:RENOM, although if I were at the AfD I would argue against deletion in favour of merged the many repertoire into one sortable table. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I just thought I'd add that this article, which resulted in a Keep decision at the AFD, has already been altered, massively, by Why? I Ask since this Deletion reivew was started. It has been massively stripped of content, merged and turned into a redirect before this DR discussion has even been closed. I guess if you don't get your way in an AFD discussion to delete an article, you can just remove 90% of the content of a page and turn it into a redirect instead. This seems very inappropriate especially since the editor initiated this deletion review but I guess was too impatient to wait for a closure or they didn't care for the direction this discussion was headed in. I'd vote for Article restoration to the status of the article, and any other articles listed in the AFD, when the AFD was originally closed and revert these huge changes in content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't initiate the deletion review, mind you, and the list that existed prior was overly large and lacked any references. I believe it's

  WP:Burden that says you can add them back with reliable sources that demonstrate notability. And I really don't care where this discussion goes; my goal is to build an encyclopedia. It's not to sit around and wait. The result of the discussion was that lists of repertoire can be encyclopedic. That, I'll yield. I personally just wanted it result in a delete for a TNT. But including over 10,000 entries by composers who have not even had that piece recorded is not what Wikipedia is here for. I plan to expand it back a little bit with reliable sources in the future, but for now, it can at least contain the list of viola compositions for which Wikipedia has a page for. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Yeah, that's called

  WP:DE, specifically point 1. Please take the opportunity to restore the article to the post-close status yourself, now that you have been notified your actions were at best premature. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  There's nothing that says I can't edit a page while discussions are open. The old version did not comply with Wikipedia policy or guidelines (check either

  WP:VER). Furthermore, there seemed to be a general consensus against deleting the list, but merging it down to what is provided by reliable sources (per Tim Riley and Smokey Joe). If you want it reverted, then please, provide reliable citations for each entry that declare its notability. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  (P.S., check what term

  WP:CSC uses in the first bullet point to describe what this method prevents.) Why? I Ask (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse. Those arguing for keep explained, generally in detail, why the list had merit and how it could be improved with editing to resolve the few issues. With the exception of the nominator, none of those arguing for deletion even attempted to refute those detailed arguments. No consensus would have been within the closer's discretion but keep imo does better reflect the consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Per

• Relist No sources at all were demonstrated that would make the article pass notability criteria, AfD nominations are
  WP:VAGUEWAVE assertions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse the consensus was clear. Lightburst (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is not the place to discuss again the close on the merits. Since I've already asserted keep in this process, my non-neutral view is apparent but we do agree that the central issue of the discussion WAS concerning significant coverage. The question is one of sufficiency or adequacy, which is a reasonable measurement to argue. User:Dlthewave's nomination statement makes an assertion that such coverage was insufficient (so they prodded), then after the page creator User:MONGO (an editor with many years and many more FA's in the arena of North American physical geography) removed the prod and added several sources, Dlthewave nominated the somewhat improved page (and many such other pages) at AfD, and the head count didn't go in their direction, a larger number happening to assert the sufficiency of the sources already applied, a reasonable position to take. Doczilla closed and weighted as they felt accurately measured the discussion. All this is accurate and hard to dispute. There are questions still to be resolved, in chronological order: 1) Why did Dlthewave fail to ask MONGO about the sourcing before the prod? 2) Why did Dlthewave choose to nominate for deletion so quickly, given the page was in the process of being improved by the page creator? 3) Why did Dlthewave fail to engage with me as requested after I asked them to stop prodding or nomming similar pages (which they kindly did) until we had discussed the the central issue, SIGCOV. I was actually expecting and hoping for a discussion why we disagreed on the central issue (In a comment had used the term judgement, which I knew was bold), but they failed to discuss. Reasonable cases were made, and Dlthewave's position in this DRV case is virtually identical to their position in the AfD discussion. Procedurally, this seems a reasonable close. I wouldn't have any difficulty with a relist, if such was the outcome. BusterD (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - There was enough participation so that a Relist was not required, and there was a consensus to Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how you assessed that consensus and why the Keep !votes carry the weight in your opinion? –dlthewave ☎ 02:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dlthewave - You have asked. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how did you assess that consensus and why do the Keep !votes carry the weight in your opinion? –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep closure. I recognize that the notability of very small natural geographical features can be debated, but there was a clear majority against deletion, so I cannot read out a consensus to delete here. Those who voted "keep" did cite the relevant
  WP:NOR policies. The article is short, and there may not be so much material to expand the article further, but encyclopedias in general have plenty of short articles. I see nothing to fault the result of the close here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I agree there was no consensus to delete, but a majority is not relevant to whether there was also a consensus to keep. The question is not whether to overturn to delete (which would be unjust) but whether to overturn to "relist". The nominator of the DRV specifically says "This should be a Relist". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - I disagree that consensus was clear. A majority opinion was but this did not take adequate account of
  WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, and I think the discussion here is incomplete because policy based reasons were raised as to why the article should be deleted that were not addressed as described above. It clearly is the case that more people wanted to retain than to delete, but that is not the same thing as consensus, and ending this case as a keep without even relisting for an additional week of discussion does beg the question why anyone should engage in a time consuming process of hunting for sources and, on finding there are insufficient, taking the effort to check the policy arguments and make a response challenging interpretation of the policy thus far cited, based on the text of the policy, if the case is already won, simply because enough people have simply stated a page meets policy without evidencing it. An alternative to relist is to overturn the decision to "no consensus". Consensus was not achieved. I also note that in a response above there is mention of the number of FAs an editor has, and this is indicative of some of the discussions around this and related nominations. It appears that some of the judgement may be forming around the personality and achievements of the editors involved. Although understandable, the decisions should be based on the quality of the arguments and not who is making them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Please forgive me for unduly characterizing the page creator, someone, I'll grant, I have had positive interactions with over the years. I happen to know of their vast experience in this content area. On the issue of sufficient RS I have ample reason to trust their judgement more than I might trust the nominator's judgement, which I have questioned. I requested and gave a chance to the nominator to convince me otherwise in this very reviewed procedure, but they chose to avoid entering the arena entirely. BusterD (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But again, the judgement of the nominator in making the nomination is not relevant at deletion review. The question for DRV is whether the close adequately reflected the consensus (or lack of it). In this AfD, it seemed like too many people were indeed prepared to trust the judgement of another editor when making their !vote. That is not the way it is supposed to work. I completely understand why it happens; I am not criticising anyone here, but questioning whether the arguments were fully considered. I am not saying we overturn to delete here - I am saying that the discussion is unfinished because all we have is a set of perfectly understandable judgement calls. Perfectly understandable, but insufficient to demonstrate significant coverage. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I did not vote in this discussion, but if I had, I would have voted delete. However, I agree that the consensus in the discussion was to keep. Even though I thought the keep arguments were weak, they were valid arguments and the close was a proper reading of their participation. Jacona (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The discussion had a consensus to keep. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. While User:Sirfurboy🏄 pointed out seemingly valid points against keeping the article, I think, in a broad sense, there was a leaning towards a keep consensus. Joesmithroots (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – the close was accurately based on WP:PAG, specifically CONTN, NEXIST and GEOLAND. Atsme 💬 📧 09:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Sjakkalle and Atsme. Brunton (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse' The article meets GEOLAND and it appears the closer did more than just do a vote count.--MONGO (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also added a passage and two more references. Sorry this article is not about Lake Superior or Lake Baikal as there would of course be more coverage.--MONGO (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Could not have been closed as “delete”. Read advice at
  WP:RENOM. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The deletion review requests relist, not delete.

  WP:RENOM refers to renomination of a page for deletion and not DRV. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Deny relist. The nomination did not persuade enough others. Maybe a better nomination would help. A relist, which means the same nomination, would be hopeless. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The closer correctly interpreted the consensus of the discussion. I am disappointed to see the nominator here, yet again, challenging unambiguous AfD closes that didn't go their way. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I'll say it again since this is the third or fourth time we've been through this with this particular editor. The fact that you disagree with consensus does not make it not consensus. This was unambiguous. No way it could have been closed any other way. If you disagree with consensus, that's fine, but it was clearly closed in accordance with consensus. You can't start a DRV every time you disagree with the close. This has to stop. Smartyllama (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]