Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 March 4

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 2023 March 3
2023 March 5 >

4 March 2023

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template talk:Station-stub (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) ([[Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/June_2005#{{station-stub}}_→_{{broadcasting-stub}}_/_Category:Station_stubs|XfD]]|restore)

This talk page of a template needs to be restored because other users here need to contest the speedy deletion criteria I put on the stub template. Also, the redirect stub template is currently under discussion, see

his talk page) 21:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

his talk page) 05:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Recreated the talk page as a redirect of
his talk page) 06:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
... So do you need us to do anything here, or can this be closed? Jclemens (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete old revisions then close this discussion @
his talk page) 08:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
For what purpose? There isn't a G4 pending, and if there were they could do that on a new talk page (not redirected). I'm really confused by what you are trying to achieve.
  • The template was deleted in 2005
  • Then recreated in 2013 - presumably without the talk page. ]
  • You listed at RFD
  • You G4d it
  • Then removed that G4, and it's still at RFD.
What utility is there in the original 2005 talk page at this point? -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For historical purposes which means this will be a
his talk page) 20:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Can you describe these "historical purposes" and what that means, to me its such a generic phrase as to be meaningless. -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Marikamba Temple, Sagara (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

deletion discussion is closed based on the votes but not based on the wiki policies Nimmoun (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consensus was unanimous and very much based on policy. The filer is the original AfD nominator, and the only one who wanted the article deleted. This review can be dismissed outright. Shawn Teller (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shawn Teller, dear expert under which policy your closed the discussion ? and under which wiki policy nominator are prohibited from filling review ? And even if I am the only one asking for the deletion, I am talking about wiki policies only, other keep supporters are only talking in general and even a week passed nobody added sources to support the claims made on that article, why? If sources are available than add it who are stopping them? If sources are added I will not ask for deletion. I want to remind you, wiki deletion discussions should be closed on the basis of wiki policies not based on the votes.Nimmoun (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The subject is a building, a house of worship, and the participants and the closer applied the guidelines about notability of buildings. The appellant is apparently in
    It's a building, and Wikipedia policies and guidelines say it is a notable building. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse. There was a clear consensus to keep and everything was done properly.—Alalch E. 02:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse correct reading of overwhelming consensus to keep. It appears that the appellant is trying to make this discussion into AFD round 2, which is
    not permitted. Frank Anchor 15:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Simplicity Two Thousand – There is no consensus to endorse the contested speedy deletion. Consequently, the AfD which was mooted by the speedy deletion is relisted. Sandstein 13:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Simplicity Two Thousand (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer referenced

WP:A9 in closing statement despite multiple sources being provided which I believe create a credible claim of significance. The only other editor calling for a speedy deletion did not cite any criteria so choosing A9 could not have been based in consensus. And are editors allowed to close AfDs they themselves are participants in? I had figured that wasn't the case but perhaps that was my mistaken assumption; I can't exactly remember where I got it from. And I will admit up front that I may also be making a mistake in opening this discussion. I can't say I necessarily disagree with the deletion result, just the reasoning behind it. And maybe that makes this a waste of DRVs time, in which case I apologize and please just ignore this. I just want to know that my instinct that the closure was wrong here is correct. QuietHere (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:CSD is unrelated to the AfD. The editor who deleted is not the closer, see the deletion log. You need to post a notice of this deletion review on that administrator's talk page if you challenge this speedy deletion, but it appears that you do not really challenge it. —Alalch E. 13:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I see. I misunderstood that part. Well in that case, I do challenge the CSD insofar as it was inappropriate given the ongoing discussion, and I will be leaving a notice for the deleting editor momentarily. QuietHere (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the A9 is brought into question: Endorse as an AfD delete. /inserted note: After having learned more about the speedy-deleted article, I also endorse the A9 speedy deletion per a comment below. —
    WP:IAR and do not relist; there was no explicit keep support, and the discussion was reasonably thorough. —Alalch E. 14:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Not an A9. Maybe a complete AfD. I'd prefer a relist for due process. Hobit (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy and relist. Let the AFD run its full seven days. QuietHere presented enough enough references to establish a very basic level of notability such that A9 does not apply. While the AFD was trending toward delete anyway, the nom plus three delete votes (considering the speedy delete vote as a regular delete vote) are not enough to justify closing a day and a half early. Frank Anchor 17:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why not A9? A9 applicability is determined based on the state of the article and the included references. If the article didn't make a credible claim of significance and there were no references to the same effect, then it was a valid speedy deletion and it should not be overturned in a deletion review. A7, A9, and A11 deletions don't need to go through DRV each time someone comes up with a claim of significance, such as by finding a reference. Non-administrators would have to see the article to be able to say that A9 was misapplied. —Alalch E. 18:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But there were references. One was the AllMusic review which was already in the article, and the others I provided in my comment to the AfD. I hadn't added them because what's the point of adding to an article that's maybe about to be deleted anyway, but the sources were known to exist and could've been added at any time. QuietHere (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There weren't. There was a reference (a single reference – only the reference in the article counts). Simplicity Two Thousand is a rerelease of the 1999 album Simplicity with remixes and bonus tracks. This is what the review has to say about it: "a deluxe box containing the original album, a whole slew of remixes, and a few new tunes to boot". It isn't even a stand-alone release, but a rerelease. There's a reference but it doesn't confer a credible claim of significance. Therefore the A9 was appropriate.—Alalch E. 00:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (on this investigation) - I suggest that certain parties figure out WP procedures and how to investigate background histories before launching processes like this that in turn send unnecessary notifications in every direction. The article was nominated for deletion per the usual AfD process by one person (user: ss112), but then someone else (user: Why? I Ask) tagged the article for speedy deletion while the AfD was still in progress, which is possibly a procedural error in its own right. Then the speedy delete request was granted by an admin (user: Bbb23), who apparently did not see that the article also had an AfD in progress, given the fact that it was still sitting there after the speedy deletion. None of the people above are ME, and I simply did the standard
    non-admin close on the AfD as a good faith effort to clean up someone else's mess. But then I was (indirectly) blamed in this here investigation for procedural violations and conflicts of interest. Please think before acting. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment (on the article) -
    orphan which Wikipedia tries to avoid. Some possible evidence on behalf of the album was presented in the AfD debate, but consider using that for a new article on the musician instead. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It could easily get linked from 2000 in music#Albums released and the record label Hedkandi, and I'm sure there's more options beyond that as well. Lacking an artist page doesn't guarantee an orphan, nor does it require having been made by a notable artist. QuietHere (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Relist - This was almost an A9, but it wasn't, and it was almost a good AFD delete, but it wasn't. It wasn't a good A9 because there was, just barely, a
    Ignore All Rules and let it be an AFD deletion, but there is no harm in relisting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment to User:Doomsdayer520 - Speedy delete nominations for an article that is pending AFD happen commonly. That is not a procedural error. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is when Admin leaves an AfD open after conducting the speedy deletion. Then a bystander (me in this case) has to close the leftover AfD, causing confusion about who did what/why/when in a hubbub like this. If that's not a procedural error, it should be. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The AfD was at 4d:1k at the time of closure, and the speedy delete rationale was assessed as adequate by the deleting admin. Without knowing what was claimed in the article I can't say whether the A9 actually was valid, but given what Alalch says above about the single reference it's clear no CCS was coming from the sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist An Allmusic link is a credible claim of significance. Let's roll back the incorrect A9 and let the AfD finish however it does. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    AllMusic is just a database, why would a listing there be credible? JoelleJay (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Was this a review rather than a database entry? Hobit (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay @Hobit It's a review. QuietHere (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had thought it was clear to everyone that it's a review. My problem with the review is that Simplicity Two Thousand (or Simplicity 2000) is a 2000 rerelease of the 1999 album Simplicity; as far as talking specifically about the rerelease compared to the original album goes, it describes it as just that: a rerelease with remixes and bonus tracks. —Alalch E. 19:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a rerelease doesn't automatically make it non-notable. Perhaps it just needs combined with any sources that might be available for the original and they'll reach GNG together. I haven't looked into that but perhaps I shall. QuietHere (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion – for an article created at the title of the rerelease – for the subject to receive a credible claim of significance from a source, the source would need to say how the rerelease is important as a rerelease beyond talking about the album. —Alalch E. 23:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To emphasize: this is an A9 deletion, so notability is entirely irrelevant. Something may be--and many things are--entirely non notable, and hence deletable through AfD, but still have a credible claim of significance--and hence not deletable through CSD that rely on that lower standard. Jclemens (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But is a brief review in AllMusic actually a CCS? JoelleJay (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I don't see why not. It's certainly a start.
    2. That was the only source in the article when the AfD started, but more coverage was located during the AfD process. QuietHere (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I don't know why a user bothered to have the page be speedy deleted when the AfD was just about over, but I'll be sticking by voting delete. All this fuss over an album with the absolute bare minimum of "coverage" and for what? It didn't chart and its coverage is certainly not widespread. One source found in the AfD was literally just a listing of albums on an insignificant college chart. I don't get it but sure, let's go again. Ss112 21:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said up front, I figured this was basically a waste of time. Really, I just wanted to know I was right on the principle that the speedy was wrong more than anything else, and I'm sure I could've chosen a venue just for asking about that but oh well, we're already here, too late to change now. QuietHere (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meh / Weak do not relist. While the speedy was invalid giving the article another week at AfD seems like a waste of resources. Unless someone wants to actively work on the article to improve sourcing, I don't think that it makes sense to restore the content and continue to debate it. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_March_4&oldid=1144593147"