Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 11

Christopher Schläffer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This article was wrongly deleted in a speedy deletion outside of the criteria and without looking thoroughly into the facts. Opposite to the claims made during the deletion process, the article clearly passes the test of notability as well as the test of extensive reliable sources. Christopher Schläffer has launched the world’s most popular operating system for computing platforms, Android, been awarded with many globally relevant awards (e.g. Young Global Leader/ World Economic Forum, Top50 Innovators to Watch, Manager of the Year) and contributed in leading roles in some of the world’s largest corporations and NGOs. The article was deleted despite 23 relevant and reliable sources and the addition of 4 more sources for areas where during the deletion discussion additional evidence was requested. The deletion decision should therefore be overturned. Overturn Verify.now (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article was deleted, I can’t see the citations. Can you share reliable sources that establish Schläffer’s notability per our

notability rules

?

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)}, A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few selected reliable sources which also were cited in the article amongst many others and establish notability:

Young Global Leader/ World Economic Forum: https://www.weforum.org/people/christopher-schlaffer

Manager of the Year: https://www.wu.ac.at/en/the-university/news-and-events/events/detail/wu-manager-of-the-year-2022-christopher-schlaeffer/

Amnesty International: https://www.amnesty.org/en/about-us/international-board/

iamthecode Foundation: https://www.iamthecode.org/our-team/

Verify.now (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tempundeleted. There was nothing on the talk page but WikiProject templates marking their territory. —
  Cryptic 20:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse When a DRV starts out by claiming This article was wrongly deleted in a speedy deletion when the article was in fact deleted through an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Schläffer), then the appeal is so clearly wrong as to not deserve further consideration. And anyway this is an appeal arguing that the !voters were wrong as opposed to the closer, which only rarely works at the best of times. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm far from convinced this should be overturned (even if there's enough sourcing that I'm a bit uneasy about that, hence my temp-undelete), I can't agree with either of those reasons to endorse. Inexperienced users wrongly intuit the meaning of our jargon all the time - witness how often people are upset by the apparent value-judgement of "you're not notable", when what we mean is they "haven't received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - and it's not like Verify.now fooled anybody with the word "speedy", or
    Cryptic 01:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse as per Pppery. Appellant is trying to open AFD round 2, except that they don't know the difference between AFD and speedy deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is a comment that is not really relevant to this review, but this review illustrates how
  WP:AN that RFC close reviews are too often RFC round 2. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse deletion. Explicit made the right decision to delete. The subject is not quite notable. 3 editors evaluated the article and all agreed it should be deleted in accordance with our notability guidelines.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I've never really liked how non-obvious it was that Notability is specifically a term of art on Wikipedia that generally focuses on the basic criteria of signficant coverage (more jargon, kinda). The new sources dont add anything to that. Sometimes I think we should rename WP:N "tunist" and WP:SIGCOV "woanol", or some other completely made up words, which would surely make things more confusing at first glance , but would also prevent incorrect assumptions based on the non-jargon meaning of those terms. Best we can offer is restore to draft. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear Alpha3031, thank you for this comment. I am new to these types of discussion and learning a lot from the debate. Despite all the procedural aspects which seem to be rightfully highlighted, I would hope that at the end the notability of the article (and I hope editors do first and foremost look at the article itself and not process) as well as the breath of reliable sources are decisive to either overturn or restore to draft. Verify.now (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was subjected to a Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_22#Scotched_English which decided to restore and AfD. This is now all pointless because 1 person said to redirect to Scots Wikipedia (the original target) while pretty much everybody else said to delete and that the redirect was inappropriate. Or should I redirect Shitty English to Scots Wikipedia as well? CiphriusKane (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse there was consensus to not keep at the AFD, and there was not consensus to delete in the earlier RFD which created the AFD. Of the four delete votes (not including the nom which was procedural), none stated opposition to a redirect and one even supported a merge as a suitable alternative.
  WP:ATDs do not need consensus to be implemented in place of deletion. Frank Anchor 15:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yes they do. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they do not. An ATD can be implemented as long as there is not consensus specifically against it, such "anti-consensus" was not present at the AFD. However, I overlooked that this particular target was deemed inappropriate at the separate RFD, with no suitable alternative target. Considering this, I will change my vote to neutral.
      • Feel free to gather a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy if you think policy should be changed to exempt ATDs from requiring consensus, but until you do, they do. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • It appears that you have gotten off the topic of this discussion (reviewing the closure of the subject RFD/AFD) and are beating an unrelated
          WP:DEADHORSE regarding our different interpretations of ATD guidelines. Lets just get back to the subject at hand. As already explained, I previously overlooked the RFD's rejection of this particular redirect target with no suitible alternative, hence why I struck my previous endorse vote. Frank Anchor 18:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• One opinion to redirect to an inappropriate target does not overrule two positive consensuses not to do so.
  Cryptic 20:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Involved as original nom - I agree that overturning to delete is a more sensible outcome of the two discussions taken together. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete (uninvolved) The RfD established a consensus that Scots Wikipedia was not a good target, the AfD established that it couldn't be kept as an article, between them there's no other option. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. Another blatant supervote. ✗plicit 00:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I would endorse this if I felt it was a reasonable redirect target. One !vote for a redirect can make for a fine redirect as long as no one specifically opposes it. But the admin needs to use good judgement that the target is reasonable. I don't think it is here. overturn to delete. Hobit (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. There was clear consensus for deletion at both the RFD and AFD. HappyWith (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. The RfD did not come to a consensus about the appropriateness of the redirect, just that the former article should be discussed at AfD. The AfD did come to a clear consensus, and that consensus was to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. My general opinion is that if an ATD merge/redirect target is reasonable, described in a policy based vote, and is not rebutted, closing merge/redirect is reasonable (though many respectfully disagree with my interpretation, which is understandable). However, in this case irrespective of the interpretation with ATDs in general, there is consensus that the redirect target is inappropriate when the RfD and AfD are accounted for together. As such delete is the only reasonable close. VickKiang (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete the RfD concluded that the redirect wasn't appropriate but that the previous article at that title should be listed at AfD. While it's reasonable for the closer of an AfD to close as redirect if it wasn't mentioned by the participants if that's an obvious possible outcome, here there was a prior consensus that the redirect was inappropriate. Hut 8.5 07:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As the closer, I can not deny that there was a consensus to Delete. But closers are allowed some leeway and often ATDs are taken even if not suggested by the majority of participants. I did look over the RFD mentioned but there wasn't a consensus there to Delete. I don't believe it was a "supervote", I see other closers veer towards ATDs on occasion like Merge, Redirect or Draftify. I didn't expect there to be an objection (except for the editor who shows up at every DRV involving me to bash me). But since there is a general agreement that I made a bad call on this one, I'm fine with overturning to Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]