Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October

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

Notable Indian racer. Please check references available. Seems very notable and winning more and more championships every year

1. https://www.firstpost.com/sports/kyle-kumaran-steals-show-with-two-wins-vineeth-takes-championship-lead-in-jk-tyre-novice-cup-category-11826711.html,

2. https://www.indiatoday.in/auto/latest-auto-news/story/2021-fmsci-national-karting-championship-kyle-kumaran-wins-senior-title-peregrine-racing-claim-overall-honours-1882192-2021-11-29,

3. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/kumaran-triumphs/articleshow/87992828.cms
Starling2022

(talk) 06:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• relist The discussion was poor and the sources seem decent and not discussed. I've no idea if those sources were in the deleted article, but the topic at first blush appears to meet
  WP:N. We should have a guideline-based discussion. I don't know the area well, and I know Indian sources can sometimes be questionable, but these seem reasonable and good. Hobit (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • These were the sources in the deleted article: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems to be a case of "good closure, bad discussion". There's only so much a closer can do with three unanimous delete !votes, but an AfD that doesn't even examine the cited sources (much less any others) is pretty clearly deficient. Usually in this situation we'd just restore or allow recreation, but given how recent the discussion is, I guess there's no harm in a relist for the sources to actually be looked at. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •Relist- per @Hobit, @Extraordinary Writ & @Starling2022 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist noting that the close was correct based on the information available in the AFD. There were two delete votes plus the nom, which is barely more than a
  soft delete. A good faith effort to restore the article should be considered. Since this was recently closed, a relist makes the most sense. Frank Anchor 02:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist due to additional information not discussed at AfD, while noting like others that the close based on the discussion was good. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per
  WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. No need for another round of AfD which will obviously result in keeping. No fault of the closer.—Alalch E. 17:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore. I don't really see the point in relisting either, but no prejudice against renominating for anyone who does. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse was there any effort to engage with the closer? (I cannot see any, but happy to be corrected). I agree with Frank Anchor, the discussion itself was essentially only minimal endorsements of the nomination, so a soft delete would have been a reasonable. Nevertheless, absent of any engagement with the closer, I feel a need to respect the decision which was within reasonable discretion. No prejudice against recreation. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. No closure error, but new evidence has been presented and the three delete votes were all pretty weak IMO. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 22:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse insofar as the close was correct based on what was in the AfD, and the closer did not err. However factoring in the new information, undelete. I'd say no relist is needed automatically as part of the DRV, but it can just be nominated by any editor at their own discretion moving forward. Daniel (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

This program has been untouched for 15 years. It is impossible to compile since 2019 because it was never converted from Python 2, which is unsupported and removed from all but a couple of really outdated Enterprise Linux distributions until their EOL. OggConvert was dropped from Fedora 32, and at some point by Debian and Ubuntu as well. It's extremely unlikely that this will ever be made to work again given that Python 3 is incompatible with version 2, and that it also relies on Glade from GTK 2, and possibly other unmaintained software. As such, this program is no longer notable enough to have a Wikipedia page since it would need a major rewrite. (At least two-thirds of the code). The last proposed deletion was in 2009, and should be overturned as the program has rotted away. Daemonfc (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• DRV hardly ever overturns an afd to delete, and it's certainly not going to do so with one from 13 years ago. You can
  Cryptic 04:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy endorse. Original AFD over 13 years old. If you want to nominate it for deletion again, that would be done at
  WP:AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The last AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OggConvert (2nd nomination) ended in keep. This does not belong here. If someone believes it should be deleted a new AFD is needed. ~ GB fan 10:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close per above. The AFD was closed as keep almost 14 years ago. I also would not recommend taking this to AFD with the mentioned rationale because software becoming obsolete does not make it not notable. The nominator claims that this program is no longer notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, however notability is
  WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Frank Anchor 14:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Frank is right. (I had typed virtually the same comment but Frank beat me to the punch, GMTA) Notability is not temporary. No comment on whether it ever passed the bar for notability to begin with. The discussion in the AfD concluded there's at least one good source. A new AfD could be opened but would certainly fail if the only argument is that the software is obsolete. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy close an AfD this old doesn't belong here. In addition, the reasons for deletion given by the nom are not policy or guideline based. If the nom wishes to see this deleted, they should go to AfD and make an argument for deletion based on WP:N. Hobit (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd like to userfy these pages so i can migrate them to a dedicated fandom wiki TheDireMasterchat 11:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Is this a
  Requests for Undeletion yet? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I think this should have been queried to the closing administrator (myself) first. I have no objection, and can look at this later tonight. BD2412 T 19:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you looked into it? TheDireMasterchat 09:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine refunding all. Real-life matters are delaying me. I will take care of it this afternoon. BD2412 T 15:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheDireMaster: These are all done, I will follow up on your talk page. BD2412 T 18:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The pages have been refunded to userspace. This can be closed. BD2412 T 16:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I closed this as keep but User:GhostOfDanGurney asked me at my talk page to consider reopening and relisting it due to canvassing for the keep !votes. I don't have a strong view but my rationale for closing as keep is, despite the canvassing, the keepers make sound policy-based arguments and, other than the nomination itself, there are no !delete votes at all. I don't see a need to relist - the discussion was open for the full 7 days - but would value some other opinions hence bringing it here. WaggersTALK 09:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn close and relist - The canvassing is apparent and there are no !votes at all once you remove canvassed opinions and the page creator. There were unaddressed concerns about
  WP:GNG is met. To be clear, however, it could be met. This needs more eyes, and the end result could be the same or it could be delete, but we don't have that clarity yet. Thus relisting for another week would seem to be sensible. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment – As the nominator of the AfD in question, I have obviously expressed my desire to see the page deleted. I largely agree with Sirfurboy's assessment, and as I noted in the AfD discussion I am not at all convinced by the sources and arguments put forward by the keep !voters. I don't think there was really a good way to close the AfD: there wasn't enough support for deletion to close it as no consensus, but at the same time the fact all !voters were canvassed makes it difficult to see the result as a convincing keep. I would be happy to see it relisted for further discussion. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The word canvassing is still being used and the point is being missed because they were not asked to vote to keep it. Editors who are some of the most knowledgeable in terms of the subject matter will not be able to comment on an article nominated for deletion unless they know about it in the first place. Furthermore, surely they are best placed to comment on a subject that they know the most about and this can include voting for it to be deleted. I have noticed in recent years the increase in users acting as though they own Wikipedia and discouraging the 'average' editor to interact. This goes against the core values of Wikipedia. Pyeongchang (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect Pyeongchang you do not seem to understand how the word "canvassing" is used on Wikipedia. As GhostOfDanGurney clearly explained in the AfD discussion, your actions have been perceived as canvassing because you had good reason to believe that the users you notified would !vote in favour of keeping the article. While actually asking an editor to !vote in a certain way would definitely be an obvious example of canvassing, it is not at all a requirement. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi 5225C, you replied to every 'keep' comment on the nomination deletion page and even replied to my comment here. You have missed the point of my comment above and if this is not a case of trying to dominate proceedings to back up your nomination then I do not know what is. I quote the well known phrase - He who shouts loudest. Pyeongchang (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you refer to the tagging of !voters as having been canvassed, then that was not me. If you are referring to responding to other comments and !votes, then that is standard practice for nominators at AfD. I do note that this was only your second AfD, perhaps you are unfamiliar with them? The entire goal is to "back up my nomination", if I wasn't willing to back it up then I would not have opened the AfD. Do you expect me not to respond to glaring errors? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. After removing the possibly canvassed votes, it is apparent that there is one "keep" (the creator) vote against one "delete" vote (the nom). There is nothing wrong with an article's creator defending his or her work, especially when constructive arguments can be made, and the creator asserts passage of
  WP:GNG. A no consensus close would be okay but it is possible another week would allow consensus to develop. Frank Anchor 18:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Overturn and Relist, based on the closer's comment that there was canvassing. This is a weak overturn because neither the closer nor the original nominator has said so that I could understand it exactly what the nature of the canvassing was? For instance, did the author comment on the user talk pages of certain editors? That would be canvassing of a subtle sort. Yes.Did the author comment neutrally on project talk pages? That is not canvassing. I am relying on the closer's judgment that there may have been canvassing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These difs were listed in the AFD to support evidence of canvassing. Messages on the users' talk pages that the subject AFD was taking place. Michig Johnny2hats2 Rcclh. Frank Anchor 20:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Frank Anchor for the explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to the closer for administrative integrity and for being ready to reopen their close when it was challenged. (I don'tdidn't know what the nature of the canvassing was.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. There is canvassing because the notification messages, while not blatantly non-neutral (i.e., they were not saying "please vote keep"), clearly chooses a biased audience who has never edited the articles in question (so are not appropriate notifcations) and are chosen solely for their perceived views. These cause the AfD to be tainted by it, and no clear consensus can be ascertained. VickKiang (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -
  canvassing on deletion discussions. Notifying users whom you have selected is defined as a form of canvassing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I don't object to a relist, and have no idea whether this person is notable or not; but as in the past, I feel compelled to observe that a broad definition of "canvassing" is problematic if it precludes bringing a discussion to the attention of the people who are (1) most likely to be interested in the discussion, and (2) most likely to be able to make well-informed comments in the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think there'd be a problem if the user had simply left a message at

  WP:APPNOTE. The issue here is the specific targeting of select users based on known opinions to message via Userspace, rather than letting those users find their own way via a WikiProject message. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Posting a neutral comment on a Wikiproject is fine in my opinion also, as persons in a Wikiproject have a knowledge or interest in a topic that the average editor does not. An interested user may be better able to assess the notability of a page or find resources to "save" a page that would otherwise be deleted, redirected, etc. However the canvassing that occurred here is reaching out to three specific users about a page. It is unclear if the Pyeongchang had a bias (i.e. this user didnt say "there is an AFD on Ace Pijper, I need you to vote keep") but it is suspicious that all of those canvassed users voted keep despite having never edited the page in question. Frank Anchor 13:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For some context. I would consider myself an 'average editor' and would not have any knowledge/interest in any Wikiproject pages. Had I not been notified, I would not have known the page would have been up for deletion until I accessed the page directly. There was no reason for me to edit the page as it's already in good shape from when it was created, I don't see a point in editing something for the sake of it. I was neither asked to vote for delete or keep, but as somebody who has an advanced knowledge of speedway, I voted keep as I know this page is relevant within its sport. Looking at Pyeongchang's previous edits, he clearly also knows about speedway and therefore feels others who know about speedway are knowledgeable enough to make informed decisions on the subject. Johnny2hats2 (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist in the hopes of a better source analysis occurring there. I'm not as concerned about whether to call the notifications to others "canvassing" or not in this instance. I do feel the discussion was ultimately defective, in that much of what was written didn't engage with our actual notability guidelines. Fundamentally, we have the nominator's claim, "non-notable athlete, a WP:BEFORE check reveals almost entirely primary sources or routine coverage, and very little or no significant coverage" versus one policy based response stating "while there's not a great deal of third-party coverage around, there's enough in the Speedway Star and Polish and Netherlands media to scrape through". Hopefully, given more eyeballs, this difference of opinion can be resolved and a policy-based consensus reached.
  Martinp (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'd like all the deleted outlines in draft space revived, so that I can look them over to see which ones are closest to completion. There may be as many as two hundred, but I can't remember what their titles are. How do we get these drafts revived, not knowing their titles? Are they lost in the ether?    — The Transhumanist   01:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would suggest that the Original Poster is more likely to get help in determining how to identify the drafts with names of the form
  wavicles travel in a wave-like manner without the need for a medium. What you probably want is for some sort of search for or report of deleted titles by someone with administrative privileges, and I am guessing that the Help Desk or Village Pump are less unlikely places to find that expertise. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• You didn't need an admin just for the list, just a rigorous definition of what should be on it. "All pages starting with 'Draft:Outline '" is probably good enough at least to start with. I've pasted the titles in the collapsed section above; there's some more information about them at
  Cryptic 22:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thank you. I've pared the list down to those I'd like to inspect or work on.    — The Transhumanist   22:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Refund to userspace of the DRV nom so that the pages wouldn't be G13-eligible (imagine undeleting them, no one working on them, and having to delete this many pages again). Userspace drafts of outlines are G13 immune because they should never be submitted through AfC. There is no reason to deny the request.—Alalch E. 00:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to draftspace once the list is properly confirmed – not to userspace, which is a lot of effort done only to circumvent G13. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cleaned up the list, removing non-outlines and titles that already are outlines in article space.    — The Transhumanist   21:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• What's next? - @
  Alalch E., and Stifle:    — The Transhumanist   05:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  An administrator will close the DRV and do what needs to be done. —Alalch E. 08:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ...once at least 7 days have past since its listing. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   03:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was nominated alongside

• Closer comment, just noting that I support this DRV to find some broader consensus per my longer comments at User talk:Seraphimblade#Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada as the situation that came from the three distinct AfDs isn't a longterm solution. Thanks Nableezy for raising this conversation. Star Mississippi 16:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC) In case it wasn't clear, noting that I'm the closer of two of the three referenced discussions, Israeli civilian & Civilian casualties. I did not close the Palestinian civilian AfD. Star Mississippi 23:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  inviting @Jay to this discussion per User talk:Liz#Second Intifada AfD in case they have anything to add per the RFU request, which I'm unable to locate. Will leave Liz a note in the section on her Talk as she doesn't use pings I don't believe. Star Mississippi 17:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The RfU was archived to WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 389#Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Jay 💬 07:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was trying to remember my role in all of this and it's because I originally closed the AFD for Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada as Delete and deleted the article (along with quite a lot of redirects). I was asked to revert and relist so I restored the article and relisted the discussion. So, there was a period of time when two of the three articles were deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist based on limited participation and no convincing arguments to delete. This AFD probably should have been "bundled" with List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, but it was not. The nom, plus the three other delete votes, cite
  WP:SURMOUNTABLE concerns). This point is not rebutted by any delete voter. I also find it very unusual that the Israeli civilian casualty list was relisted while the Palistinian civilian casualty list was closed as delete despite similar vote totals and arguments, by the same user (Seraphimblade) within one minute of each other. Frank Anchor 17:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Adding that I oppose relisting all three as a bundle. The other two articles were correctly closed as no consensus. Frank Anchor 13:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist per Frank above, and the AFDs should have been bundled.VR _talk 19:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Page was deleted prematurely as a cleanup effort was underway. Information on casualties in the Second Intifada is crucial to the subject, and it’s important there is equal representation from all sides in the conflict. Mistamystery (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as a bundle with the other two articles, which had No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist all as one bundled nom. Levivich (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as bundle, those results clearly do not make this encyclopedia better. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn per
  WP:RENOMinated.—Alalch E. 13:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Because the Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada article is terribly damaged now, and it is really aberrant that there is a table with Israeli casualties but not Palestinian casualties because of a broken tranclusion, this should be done immediately; the state of Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada should not be tolerated for multiple days. —Alalch E. 13:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not the fault of the closer, it just happened.—Alalch E. 13:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relist: alongside the parallel Israeli casualties list, if not also the parent. Per the above arguments, and my initial observation at

Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

There are more sources now, see

Update: the article exists now, but I'd still like to examine the old versions for sources I might have missed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could we also get the article (if it ever gets restored) semi or 30/500 protected? There have been five attempts to get SSSniperWolf on Wikipedia, with

talk) 11:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Ignore what I just said.

talk) 11:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note. Following the AfD, the title was recreated as a redirect to Jacksfilms#Conflict with SSSniperWolf (2022–present), that redirect is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#SSSniperWolf. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2023 versions of this article have history at
  SSSniperwolf. The correct spelling of the subject's name is "SSSniperWolf". Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - The multiple AFDs for this YouTuber illustrate a major case of
  ultras, fanatical followers, who are distracting from any real effort to establish notability. It appears that none of the versions of the title have (yet) been locked. The tweaked versions should remain locked, or be made into locked redirects, if a good version is ever accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • talk) 23:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Vandal. Ultras are trying to get an article for their person. If they succeed, normal editing is sufficient to keep fancruft out of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Robert McClenon, MER-C regex salted the title on MediaWiki:Titleblacklist as a result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive355#SSSniperwolf.
    I'm unsure if this was a case of gaming the system, when I created the source assessment page I called her "Sssniperwolf" in the pagename. (the page has been moved since) Careless really, I should have looked up the correct capitalization. And the thread on AN/I was titled "SSSniperwolf" (lowercase W), also wrong. No comment on whether or not she has ultras. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • reliable sources that mention SssniperWolf. The ultras were creating multiple versions of the title to game the system. The only question is whether to accept one of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • mobile user (or even a desktop user) might have received years ago when trying to create the article with incorrect capitalization. Without actually knowing the history of the various creations, I assume good faith. (perhaps naively) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • game the system is not important with regard to what we should do, but I have seen that changing the spelling or capitalization of a name is often done to be evasive. She is an Internet celebrity, and they have ultras. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Allow review of draft using the analysis of sources provided by the appellant. I don't mean that the reviewer should agree with the appellant, but should either use the source analysis or use it as a starting point. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The RFD can be paused while the draft is reviewed, or subsumed into review of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Should we close the RfD? The latest comment is from 2 days ago. — 
  talk) 15:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Refund to draft. There are some new sources. This doesn't affect the RfD. The redirect, if it isn't appropriate for BLP reasons as said in the RfD can be deleted. Then, when the article is ready for publishing, there will be the article. AfC, as always, is optional. (Just don't move to mainspace without a solid effort to add content sourced to references which demonstrate notability.)—Alalch E. 23:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -
  talk) 00:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Only one of the draft pages was restored which was written in 2018.
    Draft:SSSniperWolf. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The pages were started and developed at different times by different authors. History merging is not the right thing to do. Content may be merged after restoration, and all pages may redirect to the central article. Jay 💬 05:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Update. The article

    Draft:SSSniperWolf, which would then be re-redirected, and that which can not because of disparate histories can be emailed. —Alalch E. 17:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    To clarify, that is what I stated on RfD. If the deleted versions could be refunded to draft and/or my userspace and/or emailed I'd appreciate that. I mostly want to examine them for sources I may have missed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Emailing isn't really practical.

    Cryptic 18:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Cryptic, do [8] and [9] help? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    They do. I'd been looking only at

    Cryptic 19:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Cryptic, thanks! I received 2 out of 4 mails, not sure what could have happened to the other two? (I checked my spam folder) I replied. Again, thanks, and hopefully the other two mails can be recovered or re-send. :-) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    My reply tool pings automatically, I'll try to remember not to ping you.
    I had kicked my watchlist addiction a long time ago but recently I've suffered a relapse. Thanks for sending the other two again, they arrived this time! I extracted a list of URLs and posted it on

    Wikipedia:SSSniperWolf sources overview#Links from deleted versions of the article to comb through. I looked at the list for obvious defamatory or spam links but didn't notice any. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Alexis Jazz, is there anything else left to do here, or can this be closed? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Extraordinary Writ, this can be closed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The actress has played several prominent roles in many

Overturn and Relist Can the consensus be overturned and the article be relisted in the AfD? So that a better conclusion can be made on the

WP:N of the actress? 117.246.109.169 (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse the 2020 close, as the correct reading of consensus in 2020. The appellant does not appear to be claiming any error in the 2020 close, but rather says that the subject has become notable since 2020, which doesn't require overturning the 2020 close. The title has not been salted.Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Recreation, either in article space or in draft space, subject to new AFD in article space or to AFC review in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The latest article of Adrija Roy was deleted very recently on 18th of October under G4. Can that article be restored and be subjected to AFD?117.249.189.24 (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have undeleted the October 2023 edition for G4 comparison purposes. Courtesy @Secretlondon:. No comment on merit as I do not have time to assess at the moment. Star Mississippi 00:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. I would not have speedily deleted the 2023 version under G4 as it contained information relating to post 2020 roles, however it was completely unreferenced and definitely would not have survived AfD in the state it was in, indeed the only reason it would have passed A7 was the implied claim of significance of having roles in multiple notable productions (notability is not inherited, but significance can be). Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The most recent version was completely unsourced, and in that respect was not an improvement on the AfDed version (which did cite sources). It did include information on roles she had since the last AfD, so the G4 is at least debatable, but I would strongly recommend trying to write a version with sources instead. Hut 8.5 12:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment With respect to what @Thryduulf: and @Hut 8.5: have said; Can the last AFDed version of 2020 and the latest 2023 version of the article Adrija Roy be merged and restored to the article space? We (myself and my fellow editor friends) will work relentlessly on it and modify it within a week with respect to the demands of an article of Wikipedia. But, if the admins still feel it's not worthy enough to be a Wikipedia article then it can pass through the process of AFD once again.117.249.238.129 (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be better in draft space where you have six months* to get it into shape for an article, or (if you create an account) userspace where there is no deadline. (It's a rolling six months from your most recent edit to the page). Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No need. We are confident enough to create an article on Adrija Roy with apt references respecting the needs of a Wikipedia article once we are allowed to recreate.117.249.190.174 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Who is "we"? —

  Cryptic 18:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Myself and my fellow editor friends. One of them has an account but she doesn't use it much. All of us have a really good experience on working with Wikipedia articles and know what are the requirements to create a perfect

  WP:BLP. 117.246.207.36 (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment: the undeleted page has no sources and says almost nothing; at best restoring that article will have minimal benefit. The 2020 deletion was clearly a correct reading of consensus. I see no reason why the IP can't start a new article at Draft:Adrija Roy with actual sources demonstrating notability, if she is in fact now notable. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually we want to recreate a new article on Adrija Roy. We will do it once @Star Mississippi: removes the undelete tag from the undeleted page. Once we recreate, if you feel that it doesn't meet the standards of Wikipedia then you can subject it to AFD 117.246.144.215 (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Star Mississippi: - Can we recreate the article of Adrija Roy now? We do not want any restoration of the recently deleted or the AFDed version of the article. We are ready to start afresh everything.117.246.144.215 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You can work on a draft at any time. I would advise against creating one in mainspace until you know whether the sources are sufficient as it would likely be re-deleted. Would you like me to restore it to Draft:Adrija Roy? Star Mississippi 15:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No @Star Mississippi we don't want any restoration. We are confident about recreating the article in mainspace with reliable sources to support the article. But if you still feel that the article is not meeting Wikipedia standards then we are completely ok with the article getting subjected to AFD and getting deleted. Can you please grant us the permission to recreate?

  Even the maximum votes in this DRV is to allow recreation.

  117.246.144.215 (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer admin User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Deletion_Review:_Adrija_Roy Star Mississippi 14:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies for trying to speeden up the process of this DRV. Actually I am not really aware about the time span of a DRV which is why I was getting impatient as it has already been a week after I raised the concern on

  UGC NET. I wholeheartedly apologize for my behaviour and I promise that this will not repeated again and I will wait patiently until someone closes this DRV. 117.219.208.254 (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

Reason: Article reads like an advertisement or promotion. Makes loads of unsubstantiated claims which aren’t backed up by third-party sources.

This page wrongly deleted by LibStar & A MINOTAUR 15:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

This page was not an advertisement/promotional material. It is a factual record of an existing organisation which regularly contributes to federal government submissions and whose research is featured in Australian media. The organisation in question is still operational and edits to the wiki page had been made in the last 6 months prior deletion. Similar organisations, i.e. other Australian Think Tanks, have not had their pages deleted even though they have the same quantity and quality of content, including references/resources from third party sources. If this page violated Wikipedia's policies than the same standard should be expected for the other think tank pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsablaupunkt (talk • contribs) 03:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Subject failed GNG. Half the sources cited were the subject's website. This is sour-grapes from an undeclared CoI who makes an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a long history of replacing this article with spam - previous versions (such as before
  Cryptic 03:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - The right conclusion by the closer about consensus, and the right conclusion by the editors about
  organizational notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - The only edits by the appellant are by this account. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse nothing unreasonable about the closing on the basis of the discussion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There is unanimous consensus for delete and three votes are enough for
  WP:NOQUORUM to not apply. VickKiang (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

List of roles in the British Army (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was a policy-based rationale for deletion but no policy-based counter-argument. It seems clear that delete was the only correct outcome in this case. The admin would not self-revert. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (Closer note) The majority of 'keep' !votes were very deficient in their argument of policy and guidelines, and I acknowledged this in my closing comment. However, there is insufficient support for 'delete' within that debate to close as such, and to do so would be considered a supervote. It had been relisted twice, with the second relist being done by Rosguill and noting it was looking like 'no consensus' at that point. I agreed with this assessment and considering a third relist would not have been fruitful or appropriate in my administrative discretion, closed as 'no consensus' - which I feel is an accurate representation of the discussion. Daniel (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - no consensus based on policy but was really a
  WP:SNOW keep. When the discussion is so lopsided, it probably indicates the policy might be wrong. - Indefensible (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Clarification: Policy or the interpretation or application of policy. - Indefensible (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Could not possibly have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse - I'm on the fence between endorsing the NC close or voting overturn to keep, but both are the same result for practical purposes and the delete arguments were more based in policy. In a case like this where the overwhelming consensus goes against the a policy, it shows that
  WP:5P5, The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Consensus clearly shows this is one of those times. Frank Anchor 12:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse as per Frank Anchor. This appears to be a case where the appellant is saying that the closer should have supervoted and ignored the consensus. The closer was taking policy into account, which is why they closed as No Consensus rather than as Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the closer said there wasn't enough support for deletion to close as Delete, even though the Keep arguments were weaker. The Delete arguments were not "policy-based", they were based on
  WP:GNG, which are not policies. Furthermore while the Delete arguments were stronger there doesn't seem to have been much attempt to find more sources about the topic. I'm sure there must be plenty of sources out there discussing careers in the British military. Hut 8.5 19:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I think people are just using policy-based as a shorthand for P&G based- I don't believe anyone is actually claiming that GNG is a policy. VickKiang (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If people mean guideline-based they should say guideline-based. The OP's position would make a lot more sense if the arguments for deletion actually were policy-based. Guidelines on the other hand are much more amenable to occasional exceptions. Hut 8.5 07:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse While some of the Keep opinions were weak, there was definitely not a consensus to Delete this article. No consensus seems appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per
  WP:NLIST. Guidelines should not be applied mechanically but in accordance with consensus, and poor arguments should be down-weighted but rarely all the way to zero. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • For the record, I did downweight some arguments in this debate all the way to zero - the final two comments being two notable examples. They are not arguments at all for keeping, and totally irrelevant to the debate. "Big enough to have its own page", "Warrants its own article" and similar contributions should always be weighted at 0 in my personal opinion. Daniel (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, as there certainly is not a consensus to delete, but feel free to throw a few dozen {{citation needed}} tags on all the uncited purported "roles", and take a flamethrower to whatever doesn't get sourced. BD2412 T 03:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Keep, this was an uncharacteristically poor close from an otherwise good admin, on this occasion showing a poor understanding of the role of AfD, and of the role of administrators. The whole point of AfD is to allow editors to make a case which may be based on quite a wide and nuanced interpretation of multiple policies, including a consideration of what an encyclopaedia is here to do. The definition of Wikipedia as an online encyclopaedia is actually more "core" than any of its written policies, which are ultimately merely the mechanism by which its encyclopaeidahood is enacted. Daniel I was somewhat hurt by having my "keep" !vote casually disregarded as not based on policy, if I'm one of the two "notable" examples (the word notable was an unnecessary jibe at my competence, I thought). There are a lot of problems with closing against a very large majority of !votes with the explanation that they weren't "policy". One is that we can argue indefinitely about what "policy" actually is, wikilawyering backwards and forwards between different guidelines, distinguishing guidelines from policies from essays. The other is that ultimately, it makes it look rather as though the viewpoints of normal editors are liable to being ignored by an admin, which is contrary to the principle that when it comes to content, all editors are equal. Elemimele (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Elemimele, you seem to misunderstand - your specific contribution was not one that I largely disregarded, as it was the other two I actually quoted in full in my above comment (03:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)). I would have thought that was rather clear, but apologies if it was not. I cannot agree that they should not be largely disregarded given what they wrote (again, quoted in full above), per my above comments. But your comment certainly wasn't. Daniel (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Daniel I apologise for taking it personally and for misunderstanding which comments were being ignored. My paragraph rant above was a bit of an emotional response that was probably over-the-top. I certainly think you were right to refuse to go for a delete, and in the end there's not much practical difference between no-consensus and keep. I don't envy anyone who tries to close AfD debates. Thank you for your prompt and kind response to allay my concerns! Elemimele (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problems, thanks for the further elaboration; and apologies again for any ambiguity in my notes that caused this misunderstanding! Daniel (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn to keep Yes, the keep !votes are mostly weak. But the delete !votes are just vague waves at a guideline. As far as I can tell, no one explained how that guideline applied to this discussion. And it's a guideline that says "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists". That's a pretty clear indication that lists are an area we don't have black-and-white rules for how to handle inclusion. So we largely rely on the opinions and thoughts of our editors. And here it's very clear that our editors think we should keep this. So we should. Hobit (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The keep side has a large majority, but for the most part substantially weaker than the delete one. Therefore, IMO the closer was right to override the numerical count and close as NC. VickKiang (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep, mostly per Hobit. I do see some poor keep votes that should have been excluded but I also see keep votes that make strong points that should not be excluded. What I don't see any are delete votes that were not completely addressed by those in opposition. Rigid adherence to guidelines is both contrary to the explicit nature of guidelines and also results in perverse outcomes where articles about topics that people expect to find in encyclopaedias are deleted because the real world doesn't fit the neat boxes we like to put things in and/or different countries do things differently. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This could have been no consensus or keep. It would not be a reasonable outcome for this discussion to be closed as delete. The reason I say it could have been keep is that while I agree less weight can be given for !votes that lack in policy (and more weight to those that back up policy claims in detail), I also think if an editor in good standing takes the time to !vote, their opinion mustn't be fully discounted, due to a variety of factors like implicit policy claims that fail to drop UPPERCASE, an implied different interpretation of already mentioned policies, or a desire to IAR without explicitly stating so. No consensus is still a reasonable outcome. —siroχo 17:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nakba Law (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

In direct contrast to the reason for speedy deletion, this is a translation of a scanned copy of a public domain work, the law of a government - see Public domain#Government works. There is no copyright infringement here. Furthermore the deletion blindly removed other edits and improvements to the page which did not relate to the intended removal Xland44 (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page was not deleted, but a small amount of content was removed as being a violation of our copyright policy, and I did revision deletion. The section I removed was provisions of the law as translated in this copyright journal article. Creating a translation generates a new copyright. Please see my response here. — Diannaa (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Close - There hasn't been a deletion or deletion debate. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The discussion clearly has a consensus for keep. The closing admin simply discarded all opinions they deemed 'not based on policy', and

• Reopen and relist. I'm not as convinced as Headbomb that the discussion provides a guideline-based consensus for keep, but there is certainly no consensus to delete/redirect. The close was as obvious an example of a supervote as I can remember seeing. (Note: I participated in the discussion, but did not provide a keep/delete opinion, and am still on the fence about which way I think this should go. In the discussion and in edits to the article during the discussion, several independent reliable sources on the topic were provided; the discussion has not yet clearly addressed the question of whether these sources have the required depth of coverage.) —David Eppstein (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep. Allow me to explain my "keep" !vote in the AfD. I argued that because the journal is included in three highly selective databases (Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, and MEDLINE-for the latter even in the highly-selective subset Index Medicus), it meets the requirements listed in the essay
  WP:ACADEMIC, where we assume a person is notable if they occupy a named chair or are editor-in-chief of a notable journal, which is also based on the reasoning that universities/publishers know better than us and only get above-average academics for this kind of positions. Finally, if we decide that this particular journal is not notable, then >95% of our articles on academic journals should be deleted. Would that really improve the encyclopedia? --Randykitty (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and re-close properly. People may !vote at AFD to override notability requirements and the consensus may, on occasion, be to de so. The criteria are by way of guidance – guidance that may sometimes be inappropriate. For example, community consensus may have changed but the documentation has not yet been updated, or the guidance may never have been sufficiently nuanced to deal with a particular situation. Also the !voters understanding of notability may be better than that of the person making the close. Thincat (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved); consensus is determined by by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy; through that lens this close was correct. If some editors here would prefer a different result then the correct response in to get the cited essay promoted to a policy or guideline and then overturn this close on that basis. BilledMammal (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Every opinion had quality arguments behind it. That the arguments aren't official policy is irrelevant, because policy is meant to reflect consensus. When consensus differs from "official" policy,

  b} 12:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I've always been a bit confused how the

  WP:IAR basis, they probably should have done so explicitly so the closer could interpret their arguments more clearly. Suriname0 (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Your comments here and at the AFD I find very helpful. How does a very well informed impartial observer know that the AFD discussion represented merely a "local consensus". Is there somewhere to look or ask to discover a possibly different global consensus? Clearly some people here and at the AFD seem to know that there should not be an article, but how do they know? Where do we find the "lens of Wikipedia policy" as it applies to this article?

  WP:NOTABILITY is a likely place to look but it only offers guidance, not instruction, for how to assess an article. It seems to me that at that point people can take a view (hopefully giving reasons). Whether those reasons necessarily involve IAR is up to the individual. Thincat (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  If you want to interpret my !vote as IAR, that's fine with me. If this journal gets deleted, the vast majority of journal articles would be open to deletion, which most certainly would leave the encyclopedia poorer. --Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The simple solution to that would be to get

  WP:NJOURNALS made into a guideline; I'm not sure why that isn't the path that people are taking? BilledMammal (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You took part in the recent long consensus-free discussion/arguments attempting to propose that it be made into a guideline as a pretext for deprecating it, and yet you think that would be a "simple solution" and you don't understand why others disagree? Or is this some form of sarcasm that I don't recognize? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a simple solution; if this isn't a local consensus, then there will be a consensus to promote NJOURNALS to a guideline. If this is a local consensus (and thus the close is correct) then it won't be.

  If people aren't willing to make that proposal then I can only assume that the reason is because they don't believe that there will a consensus for this proposal - in other words, they believe that this is a local consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You took part in the discussion. You observed that there was no consensus, neither for one side nor for the other in that discussion. And yet you are insisting that the lack of consensus there means that one of the two sides is correct and that the other side's opinions must be completely discarded. I'm going to put this down as "willfully obtuse" rather than sarcasm. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd forgotten about that RfC; thank you for reminding me. That result gives the closer no option other than to disqualify the !votes based on criterion one as a local consensus.

  I would still, however, encourage that an RfC on promoting the entire essay to a guideline be opened - and if it continues being cited I might do so myself. BilledMammal (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure it will actually help any on this topic but can we please relist this, and leave the close instead as a comment (administrativeor otherwise) or delete opinion? Thanks. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen and relist per
  Spartaz may yet have been prevailed upon to relist in their talk page discussion. In cases like these, relisting is overwhelmingly the best practice, as it creates opportunities not just for additional opinions, but additional development of the article itself. BD2412 T 17:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: As an aside, it is remarkable how varied these journal AfDs can turn out. Here we have a journal that easily clears NJournals. And here we have a journal that is an epic fail of NJournals and GNG, but still gets multiple "keep" !votes based on arguments like "it's a peer-reviewed academic journal". Go figure. --Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen: I didn't participate in this AfD, but as someone who has participated in dozens of journal AfDs over many years,
  WP:NJournals is a hard-won compromise among editors in the academic journal field that has been used as a guideline for notability in AfD discussions for many years. Using the essay isn't a one-off IAR, it is adhering to a longstanding consensus. The closer may not have been aware of this history and so made a flawed call. I'll also note that the indices don't just provide, e.g., an impact factor, they usually have a good bit a basic information about the journal that is good, verified-by-an-RS content. That content by itself often supports an infobox and a short stub of an article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I think "adhering to a longstanding consensus" is a bit of an exaggeration. User:Vanderwaalforces closed the RfC from last month as no consensus, writing in part that "views are divided on whether the inclusion of a journal in selective citation indices alone should be considered sufficient for establishing notability." Suriname0 (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah sorry for not being clear, I'm taking the long view, over the past 8-10 years or so. As I said, this has been a hard-fought consensus and not every editor is on board. But if you look at the history of journal AfDs, most, and nearly every journal AfD I've participated in, have been judged against NJournals. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's helpful, thanks for clarifying! Suriname0 (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Relist - The close was a supervote. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - Clear supervote and dismissal of the consensus established. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - There clearly is not consensus to delete/redirect. I don't see policy-based consensus to keep either. While an overturn to no consensus could be appropriate as well, I think relisting will allow time for consensus to be driven one way or the other (particularly with added visibility from this DRV). Frank Anchor 13:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved) - Nobody even tried to post not even one source that met
  WP:ATD of redirect. If Wikipedia guidelines and consensus policy is to mean anything, closers must be allowed to discount AFD votes that don't properly apply N. "Keep, meets [essay]" is a throwaway vote. NJOURNALS is an essay. Levivich (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I don't think this is an accurate description of events. My comment in the AfD listed three independent reliably-published prose sources [10] [11] [12] and during the AfD one of these and one other were added to the article [13]. There was no discussion within the AfD of whether these were in-depth, but I think one of them at least may be, and my edit summary adding it to the article says so [14]. In addition, plenty of the comments described the indexes about the articles as being the necessary reliable sources for them; whether the summary information provided by an index counts as an in-depth source is a matter of ongoing debate, but it is disingenuous to claim that listing such sources was not attempted. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you or anyone in the discussion suggest any of those met GNG? Are you now suggesting any of those meet GNG? Levivich (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you even read the edit summary I linked above strongly implying that the source it added contributed to GNG? Or are you now just throwing out rhetorical questions to distract from the point that your endorse comment here is based on airy nothing? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your edit summary is irrelevant as it isn't part of the AfD discussion. Levivich (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is what you said about those sources in the discussion: "I can find books calling it a technical journal [1], "a technical journal that almost comes into the magazine category" [2], or a monthly magazine [3] but without much detail that would help explain those labels."

  You did not even suggest those sources met GNG in the discussion, in fact you seemed to concede they didn't ("without much detail" doesn't sound like SIGCOV). If you're now saying that one or more do meet GNG, that might be a reason to reopen. But right now I'm not seeing that any of those three meet GNG, nor am I seeing you or anyone else argue that they do. Levivich (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether the sources do or do not meet GNG is not a matter for this DRV to decide. What is clear is that (1) sources were presented during the discussion and during improvements to the article over the course of the discussion, (2) the effect of those sources on the notability of the subject was not adequately addressed during the discussion, (3) it would have been reasonable for a closer to relist, noting the lack of focus on those sources within the discussion in a relist comment, but instead the close statement totally ignored them, and (4) your endorse comment here falsely presents that situation as "no sources were provided". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't say "no sources were provided." Levivich (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist (commenting as participant). Tossing out !votes because they make no argument to any kind of encyclopedia-worthiness is one thing; this close was something else. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I can only see one person apart from the nominator who supported getting rid of the article (JoelleJay). That's not enough to support a closure of Delete or Redirect. If the debate had only consisted of the nomination and JoelleJay's comment then it would have been either relisted, closed as
  soft delete or closed as no consensus. In fact the debate consisted of that plus a load of people who supported keeping the article. If we close as Redirect then we're saying, perversely, that a bunch of people supporting keeping the article made it possible for the article to be deleted. Furthermore the GNG is not a core policy, it's a guideline which allows occasional exceptions, and AfDs can occasionally keep things which don't meet the notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 18:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. The merit of the arguments notwithstanding, it's very difficult to see how an AfD with five keeps, one delete, and three comments could be closed with a consensus to redirect; even if all of the arguments to keep were horrendously bad, it's just not the case that the discussion resulted in a consensus to delete or to redirect. jp×g 23:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, supervote closure. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (uninvolved), as a clear supervote closure and one of several questionable closes by the user in question. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep. There can be cases where a discussion closes like this despite lopsided naive counts, but it generally involves 1 !voter being a respected expert and the 5 voters being recruited randoms from Reddits voting based on ILIKEIT. That wasn't the case here. The way notability essays gain power is precisely via the consensus of the community. If the closer truly felt that this essay has no power, they need to !vote that, not close with a supervote. SnowFire (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I agree with the closer that the keep arguments are generally weak and discounting weak contributions in a deletion discussion is core to our methods. I agree with the DR nominator (and others) that the conclusion of the closer is a supervote not reflective of the discussion. That said, I have no problem with allowing discretionary decision making to closers, but such discretion should be exercised at the point when a discussion is exhausted, which I do not necessarily see from this discussion, especially as there was a fence-sitting contributor. I'd suggest a better intervention here would have been for the closer to either contribute with a !vote to redirect or to have relisted, noting the weakness of the keep arguements and seeking to direct/concentrate the discussion further. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Seems to be a clear supervote by the closer. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

African eelephant (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page is being used as an example at

• Not a plausible misspelling, and not a common typo (603 ghits, and only 19 different enough from each other that Google doesn't collapse them, including
  Cryptic 16:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  _talk} 11:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose. I'll note that both Wikipedia's search function and most mainstream search engines are smart enough to correct for minor typos like these. As Cryptic alludes to above, it's impractical to have redirects for every typo of this kind, and not particularly useful either. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  RfU. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Cryptic 01:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  My bad, I misread that sentence and thought that those were the accepted CSDs for that venue. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation based on
  WP:R#KEEP, #5 stating in part, Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Nobody has claimed that they'd find this useful, just speculated (contrary to evidence) that someone else might. —
    Cryptic 05:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Allow recreation of redirect because redirects are cheap. If it has been mentioned as an example of a misspelling, that is close enough. Redirects are cheap, and an element is a massive beast weighing several tons. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been mentioned as an example of an implausible misspelling. That doesn't make it plausible. —
    Cryptic 05:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    @

    [Citation not needed at all; thank you very much!] 11:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    There were 19 non-duplicate hits among 603 mirrors and other duplicates (more now), and the last redirect created to illustrate this point has gotten three hits this year - about as many as you'd expect from people seeing it on WhatLinksHere and wondering wtf it's doing there. —

    Cryptic 12:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    @

    [Citation not needed at all; thank you very much!] 14:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    The only significant hits were caused entirely because it was

    Cryptic 15:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    @

    [Citation not needed at all; thank you very much!] 15:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    The red link page has to have an example of an unnecessary red link. People think it is enormously funny to then create the target so that it's blue. As explained above, redirects like this are not necessary and are impossible in practice (how many misspellings of each word in a title are there?). The pageviews are because it's a red link example. Johnuniq (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I know you meant it rhetorically, but I've already looked at the numbers. For just this class of typo - adding an extra copy of a single letter - it would be between 114,905,950 and 305,143,807 redirects, so 8½-22½ times as many redirects as currently exist. That's the number of times letters appear in the titles of pages in the main namespace, including (the high number) or not including (the low) other redirects like Loxodonta. They're both minor overcounts because they count already-doubled letters (like the f in

    Cryptic 02:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• Oppose. Creating this as a redirect to
  WP:PANDORA warns against. Wikipedia's search, as poor as it is, is sufficient to get readers to the article they are looking for here; and whether or not this is a plausible misspelling I don't think it is a particularly likely one: certainly not significantly more likely than Aafrican elephant, Affrican elephant etc. none of which are redirects. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Allow recreation as a reasonable misspelling per
  WP:RPURPOSE. Frank Anchor 13:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Changed to neutral. I do maintain this is a plausible misspelling. However, if this was included as a redirect,

where would we draw the line for what is and isn't an acceptable redirect? A search with this misspelling would likely reachthe intended result anyway (see this serach for "eelephant") Frank Anchor 12:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. If we allow re-creation, then we'll probably need to have a separate discussion about replacing the example in
  ☖ 17:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Not particularly useful as a misspelled redirect: redirects are cheap but we should not have redirects for all possible combinations of doubled letters or transpositions in article titles, and I see no compelling argument that this misspelling is particularly likely. More, adding this as a redirect would destroy its value as an example of a redlink. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Such a redirect would likely be deleted at
  RfD, so its creation should not be allowed here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• No action. This is not plausible, and process for process' sake. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have undone the nominator's withdrawal due to there being arguments against endorsement. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]

  But why? There seems to be a clear consensus against allowing recreation. — MATRIX! (a good person!)^{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much!]} 10:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is long-established practice that an XFD or DRV ceases to be the "property" of the nominator once it has been opened, and if anyone has independently expressed the same view as the nominator, the discussion should be seen out for its usual duration in the absence of a

  WP:SNOW-level of consensus. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Global Day of Jihad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

WITHDRAWN by requester. HLHJ (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found myself fixing and expanding some content on the day in question at

The deletion discussion contained a number of statements that, while the subject didn't merit a stand-alone article, some related content in another article would be appropriate. There are (I think) no statements to the opposite effect. Would a redirect to {{anchor|Global day of jihad|Global day of rage}} in the

I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing the original closure. "Redirect to non-existent content that may be written in the future" would not have been a sensible closure, there was no consensus about where content might be merged to, and the content I'm suggesting as a redirect target didn't exist. HLHJ (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a request for a redirect and not a re-creation of an article HLHJ (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. The dominant, uncontested argument at AfD was not that the content was bad and needed fixing or expanding. It was that the subject did not exist; it was a hoax (or mistranslation at best).

Additionally, it's worth keeping in mind that this hoax

has already claimed a child's life, and it felt awful that Wikipedia kept perpetuating it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd think having the facts here is makes it less likely similar things would happen than having nothing, but I'm sometimes too optimistic about the human condition. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you have a point, too. Why not including hoaxes and calling them out. Still, that would need a fundamental rewrite, basically

WP:BLOWITUP (no pun intended, sorry). — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed, Hobit, Kashmiri. When researching this, it was much easier to find misinformation than accurate information. Stuff like articles claiming that every act of violence that happened worldwide on the 13th was related (only the killing of the 6-year-old seems to be); one has a headline that begins "Global knife frenzy". The standard of journalism is often awful. I think it's somewhere between gross incompetence and a hoax; a translation error and inadvertent distortion in transmission, aided by a willingness to believe the worst of an enemy and turbocharged by war propaganda, uncritically repeated by independent journalists who should know better.

I haven't seen the presumably-awful content of the article that was deleted. I don't propose resurrecting that article. I wrote some content from scratch, correcting the (mis)information on this topic that was in the protest aticle. I'm proposing we redirect the deleted article to that section. If there is anything in that section that needs a re-write, please let me know. HLHJ (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse It seems uncontested that this meets the GNG given the sourcing in the AfD. However,
  WP:NEWSEVENT applies and the discussion leaned pretty hard into it not being met. I don't see any possible way this could have been kept given both the strength of arguments and the numbers. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• You don't need to come here to recreate this as a redirect, and since
  Cryptic 19:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • original relister I think I've messed up this process. I do NOT want to recreate this article; I want to turn it into a redirect to the linked section in the protest article.
    Cryptic, are you saying I should just have done that, and there was no need for this relisting, and I am wasting the time of all commentators, most of whom seem to think this is a request to recreate the article? If so, I owe you all apologies, and I would like to withdraw this request. I think deleting the article was a good call. HLHJ (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    @HLHJ This process is essentially about undeleting a deleted article – it's a review of the original close, and editors opine whether the close was correct or incorrect given the consensus or its lack. But if you only want the term to redirect somewhere, then indeed this is a wrong process – redirects can be created without any discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Great. Done. Apologies to everyone. I thought since there was a discussion with no consensus for a redirect, I needed a new discussion to get consensus for a redirect. I would like to withdraw this request for review. I made it in error. HLHJ (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would have preferred a justification provided for why this AFD was closed several days early. I'm not challenging the closure decision but a brief closure statement explaining the decision is usually helpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Clearly not a snowball's chance of any strong arguments for keeping it. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist and allow it to run a full seven days. While it was trending delete, it certainly was not a
  WP:ATDs like merge and redirect receiving support). Frank Anchor 22:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Changed to neutral to not hold up closure per above request to withdraw DRV. Frank Anchor 10:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the early closure of Delete as a valid
  snow closure. The consensus was continuing to trend toward deletion, even though some editors were calling for alternatives. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Green Gully Reserve (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

• Endorse There was consensus that the venue did not have standalone notability but there was not consensus to delete, so redirect is the correct outcome. A retargeting discussion can take place at
  WP:RFD. I saw an RFD discussion was started and procedurally closed on this article, but it could easily be restarted after this DRV is closed, if it is specifically brought up as a retargeting discussion. Frank Anchor 12:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment as RFD closer. I procedurally closed the RfD (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 15#Green Gully Reserve) because the nomination rationale was almost entirely about contesting the AfD close, and the follow-up to my first comment made this motivation seem clearer. The closure was without prejudice to either a deletion review challenge of the AfD close or to an RfD nomination that was not based on challenging the AfD, as I explained on my talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Govvy, it's genuinely unclear from your statements both here and at the RFD whether you're primarily disputing whether this title should be a redirect, or merely where it should redirect to. In the latter case, the AFD doesn't preclude either a retargeting RFD or merging some of its content to its target, just that it shouldn't exist as a stand-alone article; and while some griping at an RFD might be tolerated, Thryduulf's closure of
  Cryptic 16:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse:
  • The closing of the AFD as Redirect as reflecting consensus.
  • The procedural closing of the RFD.
    Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If the appellant wants
  Green Gully Reserve directs to somewhere else, they should say where, and file a new RFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Reply @Robert McClenon: I said to redirect to Keilor Downs, Victoria I really can't understand why people can't see the wood through the trees, and I am not even being cryptic! :/ Govvy (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I see that User:Govvy did specify the target. I didn't see it earlier because it was hidden in plain sight in a small wall of text. My Endorse is unchanged. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well, there is a DRV tag at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Gully Reserve, which I closed, so even though your explanation here is about a RFD discussion are you contesting the AFD closure as well? If not, then the DRV tag should be put on the RFD discussion instead. Sorry to be so bureaucratic, I just want to know if I'm involved in this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply @Liz: I simply wanted to redirect to Keilor Downs, Victoria. That's what I tried to explain on the RfD page before Thryduulf closed it. I still don't get wikipedia at times! :/ Govvy (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  When you've been here as long as I have you'll understand it even less! Thincat (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AfD close as consensus was for a redirect. We don't need seven days here and a minimum of seven days at RfD so let's see if we can go on a bureaucracy diet. If nom is satisfied despite disagreeing with the close as redirect, let the RfD run to determine best target. If nom prefers a standalone article, let this run to establish whether the AfD was closed incorrectly. Star Mississippi 00:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments It's clear to me, those that endorse have not even bothered to read the original article, my reconstructed article, nor the AfD. If all those that endorse this, then I suggest to do an RfD to repoint Central Park to New York Yankees. Because that is what everyone has just an equivalent of. Govvy (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hyperbole isn't going to help your cause here @Govvy. That analogy is absurd. Please stop assuming bad faith just because you disagree with the outcome. Star Mississippi 12:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Star Mississippi: lol, you make me laugh, I am not assuming bad faith, I am assuming incompetence. Govvy (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Okay let me try and keep this simple, what are people endorsing?? So the article should be about a park, but I was looking at
  WP:GEONATURAL is ignored. The geography is ignored by other editors, the only one that posted such information was the nominator of the article, geography should be redirected to geography, not a football club. The closer shouldn't have followed consensus to be redirected to the football club. That is plan and simple. If you look at one source [15], you can see on the map provided on the source, what they call the dog area! That whole land is the upper part of Green Gully Reserve, that, they haven't put the lower part or all of the Green Gully Reserve area in the map. How large is the Green Gully Reserve area, well, again, what are people endorsing? This GEOFEAT be redirected too a football club???? Govvy (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There are two separate questions here:

  1. Should Green Gully Reserve be an article or a redirect?
  2. If it is a redirect, what should the target be?

  In pretty much every single one of your statements you have not made it clear to anybody else which question you are addressing.

  • If you want to address the first question then you need to state that clearly here and explain here why you think the AfD process was flawed. Leave out all the comments about the target of the redirect as that is not relevant.
  • If you want to address the second question then you should state that clearly here. After this discussion is closed you should start a new discussion at RfD that address only what you think the target of the redirect should be and why, leave out everything to do with the AfD as that's irrelevant to the discussion.

  Unless you do one of these things then people are going to continue not understanding you and you (and likely others) will just get more frustrated. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging @Govvy in case you missed my comment immediately above. You need to take one of the above actions to clarify your intent if you want any kind of resolution. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M43 (Durban) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore

)

• Comment - The appellant is simply mistaken in saying that SNGs trump GNG. The SNG to which she refers is worded to say that numbered roads are usually notable, which subordinates the SNG to
  general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - It appears that the closer overrode the consensus based on policy. A temporary undeletion is requested to review whether Keep would have been inconsistent with policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The last edit before deletion removed almost all of the article, because it was, indeed, unsourced. I'll go further and say that nothing in the infobox or remaining sentence is sourced, either, except for the single factoid that Ushukela (which isn't even sourced to be the same as M43!) used to be called Watson Drive. Endorse. —
  Cryptic 18:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  If you're gonna be so bold as to throw GEOROAD out of the window, then at least bold your endorsement. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  GEOROAD says this subject "cannot be notable, under either

  Cryptic 18:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  With respect please don't police the contributions of editors. Discussions are not a vote any many of us don't bold recommendations as we prefer the closer to read our comment in its entirety rather than just count bold comments.

  Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Weak Endorse as a case where consensus and policy conflicted, which should not happen, and the closer chose to follow policy rather than consensus, which is the almost right thing to do, because there is no right thing. I am basing this on the word of both
  the verifiability policy, which is non-negotiable. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You don't have to take our word, since it's been temp-undeleted. That's less obvious since the title had been recreated as a redirect, rather than brought to DRV as a redlink. The last pre-deletion version is linked in the header as "article", an esoteric feature of {{
    Cryptic 19:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment - Spartaz and Cryptic are not throwing
  reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Allow Recreation of Draft with proper sources. This is not what the appellant is requesting, but is what she may request. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I participated in the AfD. The closer made a policy based close. The appellant made up their mind very early and even questioned the admin who granted the AfD nominator's perm. Kudos to the closer for weighing policy and SNG. I think we could likely throw out the last keep as a flawed rationale and we might have a no consensus anyway. Lightburst (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Leaving Weak Endorse standing. It is weak not because I hadn't seen the deleted article but because I will only give a weak endorse to a closer who overrides consensus because consensus was wrong.
  verifiability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse (AfD nominator) The closer came to a decision based on policy which was the right move. Further, to address the appellant's arguemnts– The reasoning to delete was incredibly flawed, as SNGs trump GNG. Also, the closer said that the article was unsourced, which is simply untrue.: GEOROAD states that roads "are presumed to be notable IF they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject." Which means that in this case, GEOROAD and GNG essentially have the same notability requirements. For an article with only one source, that doesn't provide SIGCOV, rather one passing mention in a list, and doesn't even mention the author on the website, it cannot be considered a reliable source, and doesn't verify anything in article (apart from 5 words). It doesn't even make mention of "M43". ––– GMH MELBOURNE 01:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - delete was a viable close as the delete votes appeared to be based more in policy than the keep votes, which were based more in guidelines. No consensus would have been a viable close as well. No prejudice against recreation of a properly sourced article. Frank Anchor 02:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I never* endorse my own closes but I'd like to note that the nominator didn't have the courtesy of engaging with me before raising the DRV. *=Hardly ever
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That was an oversight on my part, sorry. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GEOROAD states that a national, state, or provincial highway is "typically notable" which creates a presumption of notability, which can be rebutted. It states that a "county road" would need to be covered in multiple sources. The presumption would be rebutted if an AFD came to a consensus that the article should be deleted. That means that in the absence of such as consensus, the article should be kept – because there is a presumption of notability. (This contrasts with, for example, the football player wars of the last two years, where policy was eventually amended to state that there is no presumption that a footballer who has played at $whatever level is notable. In other areas, meeting either GNG or a relevant SNG suffices to prove notability.)
  Assessing the debate, LilianaUWU and Necrothesp's contributions are bare assertions. Geko72290's is little better, an argument that it just needs to be expanded and there are other articles like this, neither of which go to the level of asserting, much less proving, notability. Dough4872 only states that the road "isn't a county road". On the delete side, again we have thin gruel. Ritchie333's argument stands out by stating there are no material sources, but the other arguments add little beyond asserting opinions of what type of road it is.
  All in all, the debate fails to reach a consensus on whether the road is a "national, state, or provincial highway" or a "county road", and fails to reach a consensus on whether to delete it. The proper outcome of the debate was no consensus, not delete, and therefore it should be overturned. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The guideline that GEOROAD redirects into the middle of,
    Cryptic 15:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That's not what "typically notable" means. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (note: I !voted "delete" at the AfD) Spartaz' close was well thought out and was based on policies. A redirect (where the page currently stands) is a reasonable compromise, but not one that was asked for by anyone, so that can't realistically be a result. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a handful of passing mentions in this source from
  Cryptic 01:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

FYI: The OP and one other participant from the AfD have been blocked by a checkuser so they may be unresponsive to pings here. Lightburst (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the block suggested canvassing may have taken place during the AfD, meaning the AfD's consensus may be unreliable. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That can't be an issue, though, because the AfD was closed against the numerical consensus anyway.—S Marshall T/C 18:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:IGNORE this rule. No comment on the canvassing or Liliana's block. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 18:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse. Meeting GEOROADS != establishing notability, it is merely a rebuttable presumption that N will be met. Spartaz correctly down-weighted the !votes that merely asserted the topic met an SNG (something that doesn't seem be a consensus, either) without engaging with the apparent total lack of sourcing to support N (not to mention V).

JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (involved).
  WP:V is a complete red herring, as its existence can certainly be verified and, as everyone should know, sourcing is about what's available, not what's currently in the article. Keep at best, no consensus at worst. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse
  required to ensure that their closes are consistent with core policies, including verifiability. Hut 8.5 11:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Diaspora (video game) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was kept following an earlier prod because it satisified significant coverage, notability, etc, the previous prod was not discussed in the most recent prod, I have evidence of significant coverage, somebody in the prod also linked to eurogamer which is significant coverage but for some reason it was disregarded Mikesc86 (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Article passed prod in 2007. In 2011 administrator Marasmusine was previously involved and kept the page following this evidence, a review in PC Gamer (see my talk page) https://image.bayimg.com/eadbkaaba.jpg. This Wikipedia article should be restored on the basis it satisfied WP:SIGCOV from PC Gamer and Eurogamer which are both WP:RS. Mikesc86 (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Guidelines state "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" but as this article previously passed a PROD, this was an abuse of process. If objection to a previous PROD kept an article, objection to a new PROD should be expected on the game grounds. Guidelines also state "PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD" - so again, processes were not followed. This newest PROD is invalid. Mikesc86 (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - significant evidence provided, Wikipedia processes asbued/not followed correctly regarding previous PROD Mikesc86 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking !vote as you are the nominator. Daniel (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It was deleted at AfD, not PROD. Consensus can and does change as reflected by the 2022 discussion. Please note your nomination is considered a request to overturn the closure, so please don't repeat your vote. You're welcome to create a new draft if there is improved sourcing. Star Mississippi 12:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do you endorse when I've provided notable sources that have previously been acknowledged by a Wikipedia admin who kept the article? Mikesc86 (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You said "if there is improved sourcing" but the sourcing remains the same, the AfD discussion just didn't take it in to account and it previously satisfied a Wikipedia admin Mikesc86 (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the 2011 assessment does not necessarily apply to a 2022 discussion.

  WP:CCC] Star Mississippi 01:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse - procedure was followed correctly based on AFD nom. An incorrect PROD was made in good faith, then was procedurally removed and the article was sent to AFD. Relisting would also have been a viable option considering the low attendance and agreement among the delete voters that there was at least one GNG-passing source. However, I see little value in relisting this discussion a year later. No objection to restoring article (and history) to draftspace. Frank Anchor 13:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The main reason for its deletion seems to have been WP:SIGCOV. The discussion did not take not of previous attempts to delete this article. If you look at my talk page you'll see I engaged with a Wikipedia admin and provided a significant source (PC Gamer magazine), and somebody in the AfD discussion provided Eurogamer which is a significant source of coverage. My argument isn't just that correct procedures weren't followed, it's that the article satisfied WP:SIGCOV and the sources are WP:RS, which means it shouldn't have been deleted on those grounds. Mikesc86 (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  DRV is not the place to relitigate the AFD discussion. There was unanimous consensus among the involved participants that there was not sufficient coverage. As I already stated, I have no objection to restoring the article to draft space so a new article, with sufficient sourcing, can be produced. Frank Anchor 13:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. As nobody has linked to the AfD discussion, here it is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diaspora (video game). Based on that discussion it's a good close (and yes, the previous PRODs are indeed mentioned there). WaggersTALK 15:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the "XfD" in the list of links immediately after the header. —
    Cryptic 16:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse deletion. Liz made the correct decision based on comments at the AfD and sources provided. I'm ok with restoring to draft space if new sources are available that weren't't mentioned in the AfD.