Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Formal review processes |
---|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
Administrators' noticeboard |
In bot-related matters: |
|
Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
- (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
1. |
{{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~ |
2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
- Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
- *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
- *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
- *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
- *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}}
template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
- If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
- If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Speedy closes
- Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
- Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
There was not a consensus for deletion in this discussion. The initial comments were all either "there are no sources" or "there is no proof this exists", which I fully refuted by finding multiple reliable sources that demonstrate existence. After I presented those sources there were only three comments left, one of which clearly had not read anything other than the nomination statement. One comment from the nominator favoured merging or deleting on the grounds that few people had engaged with the discussion, and one !vote recommending a straight keep (indicating the existence of additional sources I did not present, and which nobody engaged with). The closing summary clearly does not accurately represent the discussion - nobody mentioned the sources were scattered, and 50% of the people engaging with them wanting the article kept and 50% open to a merge is not evidence that I'm "almost alone" in thinking it warrants keeping or merging. Outcomes of merging, no consensus, keeping or relisting for more input would have been reasonable readings of the discussion but straight deletion was not. In the discussion with the closer Sandstein started by claiming that sources conclusively demonstrating existence do not invalidate !votes based on sources not existing and no proof of existence and since then has not responded at all in about 4 days despite engaging elsewhere on their talk page. Black Kite's comments at Sandstein's talk are ones that might have been useful discussion points in the AfD but were not made there (and are not entirely correct anyway). Andy Dingley also states that it might have been closed as delete because they !voted keep, I don't have an opinion about whether that is true or not but iff it is then it's significantly problematic even ignoring everything else. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn (to no consensus, or possibly redirect). I didn't see this discussion until it had closed, or I would have commented that there is enough here to keep something, even if it's only a redirect. Every one of the commenters who !voted "Delete" pre-dated Thryduulf's sources, and I suspect that some of them might have re-assessed their comments in the light of them, especially as one said "I'd maybe merge this ... but we don't have a source", another said "if it were conclusively proven to exist it would only merit a brief mention..." and a third said "Not a single source provided to support the locomotive's existence". Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Relist for additional input or overturn to no consensus. Andy Dingley's keep is the decider here - if that vote doesn't come in, it's clearly a delete, with only one person advocating for an ATD. But the delete !votes are that it's unverifiable or unsourced, and that's definitively wrong. It's not the closer's job to assess the sources, either, which was suggested. A third relist would be painful to the nom as expressed in the discussion, but would allow for more perspective. SportingFlyer T·C 13:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Relist to allow additional responses now that good sources have been found. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - User:Andy Dingley's parting comment on User:Sandstein's talk page is just S**t stirring. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Something which I've had plenty of from both you and Sandstein over the years. And now in the AfD, he pulls the "I see no Keeps here" trick. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I am not sure what User:Andy Dingley is saying that I have stirred over the years. We have at least two issues here, a content issue about a locomotive AFD, and conduct issues about personal attacks by User:Andy Dingley on at least two editors. Only the content issue is in scope at DRV, and I will try to ignore the aspersions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Something which I've had plenty of from both you and Sandstein over the years. And now in the AfD, he pulls the "I see no Keeps here" trick. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus as the biggest concern by the delete voters (lack of coverage) was refuted by several sources posted by Thryduulf. No delete !votes were made during the 13 days between these sources being added and the AFD being closed. A single late keep vote referencing this coverage. Relisting is an adequate option as well, and would be my second choice. This can allow for further analysis of these sources, particularly with added visibility from this DRV. Frank Anchor 16:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Closing admin's comment: In my view, this review request should be procedurally closed because it contains personal attacks on me as the closer - namely, the unsubstantiated and untrue aspersion that I closed the discussion as "delete" only because some other person I don't know was in favor of keeping the article. Sandstein 16:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a personal attack to state that accusations against you have been made and not responded to. I made it very clear that I am not making the statement myself and am offering no opinion on its merits. You have had nearly 5 days in which to respond to the accusation or remove it as a personal attack, but you chose to do neither and neither have you engaged with any of the other points which are unrelated to that single comment. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:ASPERSIONS, "an editor must not accuse another of misconduct without evidence." I am in no way required to respond to such aspersions, but you engage in sanctionable misconduct by repeating them in a prominent forum. Sandstein 17:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- So why did you close this as "nobody wants to keep it" and specifically ignore my Keep? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- You are not required to respond to things you consider aspersions, but if you don't then nobody knows that you consider it an aspersion. I am not accusing you of anything other than incorrectly closing the AfD (evidence presented here and at your talk), not engaging when challenged about it (evidence at your talk and now here). Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:ASPERSIONS, "an editor must not accuse another of misconduct without evidence." I am in no way required to respond to such aspersions, but you engage in sanctionable misconduct by repeating them in a prominent forum. Sandstein 17:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but there's absolutely no way this nomination meets "DRV is not" #8 and needs to be procedurally closed. I'm not sure why that user believes you deleted because they wanted to keep, perhaps there's some sort of past conflict there I don't completely understand, but I'm honestly concerned you would suggest a procedural close over that alone. SportingFlyer T·C 17:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The issue with the DRV is not the attack by a third party, as such, but the fact that the person requesting this review included the attack in the review request, thereby repeating and amplifying it. Sandstein 17:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- As a previous participant, the first time I thought anyone was being attacked was when you specifically mentioned it. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The issue with the DRV is not the attack by a third party, as such, but the fact that the person requesting this review included the attack in the review request, thereby repeating and amplifying it. Sandstein 17:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a personal attack to state that accusations against you have been made and not responded to. I made it very clear that I am not making the statement myself and am offering no opinion on its merits. You have had nearly 5 days in which to respond to the accusation or remove it as a personal attack, but you chose to do neither and neither have you engaged with any of the other points which are unrelated to that single comment. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Relist to determine the best merge target. The !votes questioning the existence of the locomotive should be discarded, but not the ones questioning SIGCOV, which still leaves us without a consensus to keep. The issue of discounting early !votes after new information is presented comes up often. I know that Oaktree b, for example, usually watches AfDs in which they participate, and amends their !vote if appropriate. The fact they and Pi.1415926535 didn't address the newly presented sources does not automatically invalidate their !votes. The appellant's own analysis of the sources casts doubt as to them providing SIGCOV, which suggests a merge would be better than a keep.
- The suggestion linking the closure to Andy Dingley's !vote is an offensive, baseless aspersion, even if hedged with an "iff true'", and the appellant should strike it out. It is not, however, a sufficient basis for a procedural close of an otherwise legitimate appeal. Owen× ☎ 17:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The early votes didn't "question SIGCOV" they stated that sources don't exist. The existence of sources of any quality automatically invalidate votes based on the lack of sources existing. A closer is supposed to close a discussion based on the arguments presented in the discussion, not their interpretation of what a participant did not say means. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am not going to debate the merits of the case with you while your offensive accusation is still up there. The more you defend this type of behaviour, the more your appeal comes across as bad-faith. Owen× ☎ 20:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can confirm that I kept abreast of the discussion after my !vote. While Thryduulf's research was thorough and much appreciated, it's difficult to evaluate the offline sources when no one in the discussion had access to them to confirm whether they do indeed constitute significant coverage, which is why I did not change my !vote. Until an editor is able to obtain those offline sources, not only is that question unresolved, but there's not enough verifiable information to have anything more than a few sentences. I don't object to a relist, but I would suggest that instead the former article be draftified. This would avoid a potentially contentious discussion; more importantly, it would allow Thryduulf and/or other interested editors time to obtain copies of the offline sources. That seems to be the most likely route to having verifiable cited information about the locomotive on Wikipedia, be it as a standalone article or merged into an existing article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The early votes didn't "question SIGCOV" they stated that sources don't exist. The existence of sources of any quality automatically invalidate votes based on the lack of sources existing. A closer is supposed to close a discussion based on the arguments presented in the discussion, not their interpretation of what a participant did not say means. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Relist. The aspersions by Andy Dingley are off-base, and Sandstein has to my knowledge never performed anything in bad faith. I therefore join OwenX above in strongly recommending that Thryduulf strike that part out. I very much appreciate Sandstein stating his rationale, however this is one of the rare occasions where I somewhat disagree with his reasoning and result. The DRV nomination by Thryduulf does bring up weaknesses in the debate itself, particularly that the "delete" votes haven't engaged in discussion of the sources that he offered. Then again, the article was never edited to show what parts of the content could be kept, and the article was still unsourced at the time of the deletion. Deletion may still be the correct outcome, but Thryduulf's sources need to be considered by those holding that opinion. Even if the sourcing is insufficient for a separate article, merging the content with more notable locomotvies derived from this prototype is an alternative. More discussion on this is needed, so I believe a relist is in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I respectfully disagree with User:Sandstein's call for an administrative close due to the personal attack, because I think that the editors here at DRV are being careful to distinguish the content issue from the conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be helpful if the applicant considered striking the final sentence of their statement, so as to allow this DRV discussion to re-focus on the core issue at hand (which is, whether to overturn or not based on the discussion in front of us all). The struck content can be discussed, debated or assessed at another venue at another time. Daniel (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to N/C because there isn't one there. I don't think a relist would be fruitful as there already have been two. It's not a high interest topic, unfortunately. There is no pressing reason this must be deleted, and if someone feels necessary it can be re-nominated down the line. There is no grounds for a procedural or speedy keep, and if there are conduct issues, I suggest those conversations happen at the appropriate venue, which isn't DRV and they're only hampering consensus. Star Mississippi 23:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The individual has achieved notoriety as the Head of Content for Crack (magazine) and further as the lead for their creative production offshoot 'CC Co' [1]. Further to this, winning a BBC television program that features on prime-time television is arguably notoriety enough. Finally, the language used within the original deletion reads as possibly being personally motivated. JakeH1108 (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Our inclusion criteria care not a whit about a person's supposed "notoriety", but rather about the extent of their coverage in reliable, independent sources. The passing mention in the link you give is quite insufficient. You don't need DRV's approval to write a new article about this person - particularly for a deletion discussion this old - but if it relies on sources like that one, it'll just get deleted again. —Cryptic 10:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Whilst there is more coverage of the individual, and their role within this creative company found in this article. I thought it pertinent in addressing the historic claim of individual doing nothing else of note. It is arguable that the individuals contributions to the music journalism and creative content industries is of note. Furthermore, merit is deserved for the original coverage of success within the The Speaker (TV series). It makes more sense to decide whether the article in question is notable enough to recover rather than making another which would be subsequently deleted. JakeH1108 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Allow recreation, noting that this does not require DRV approval since the title is not salted. The article was deleted over a decade ago and at least one source provided by JakeH1108 post-dates the deletion by several years. The history can be requested at WP:REFUND if desired, though I do not know how much value, if any, it would provide (I can not access history as a non-admin). Frank Anchor 12:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Allow recreation either in article space subject to another AFD, or in draft space with AFC review. The title is not salted. Do the requesters of requests like this think that the title is salted, or that a new article really will be subject to G4? Never mind the answer; just recreate under normal procedures. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Undelete to draft, but require AfC unless a more experienced editor volunteers to work on this. Owen× ☎ 17:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Only !vote was for userification. Yet template was deleted. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC).
- Endorse or Speedy Endorse - The one vote for userfication said
if they become convinced it's not useful, they can G7 it.
It was closed as G7. I don't see the history of the deleted template, but assume that the originator tagged it for G7 and the closer honored the G7. Unless I have missed something, this is a frivolous appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)- I wouldn't call it frivolous. The template was deleted seven minutes after the tag was placed by the author. There was no practical way for Rich to have seen the tag there, so it could appear as though the G7 application was incorrect. Now that this has been cleared up, I'm sure Rich will withdraw this appeal. I really wish we had a permission class that allowed trusted editors like you and Rich to view deleted histories. Owen× ☎ 21:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse G7. The template was nominated at TfD on 29 June 2024, and tagged for G7 deletion on 2 July 2024 by the author. They don't want it userfied, and have no use for it anymore. Owen× ☎ 21:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
This article- First female Formula 4 driver from Kerala India [2] [3], which was not proven in the deletion discussion of removing the article at the time, is now passed WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT, and the discussion at that time ended immediately, and now the woman who is the subject of this article has participated in many notable events as a formula. A female driver. This article should be moved back to the main space, and this request was communicated to a closed editor who participated in the discussion of its deletion. ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. There was a consensus to delete.Oppose undeletion. In the AfD it was said that there is false information about a living person (
full of wrong information
,full of lies
) and this was not contested in the AfD, and a page with such problems should not be undeleted. Interested editors can create the article.—Alalch E. 11:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC) - Endorse and reject draftification. The two sources cited by the appellant were already included in the deleted version, and were deemed insufficient. I'd normally recommend starting a fresh draft, but if no new sources were found, that would be an exercise in futility. Owen× ☎ 12:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse if this is an appeal of the close. Clearly the correct conclusion by the closer. DRV is not AFD round 2. Submission of a draft for review is permitted because the title has not been salted. However, there is no reason to think that submission of a draft is likely to be useful, and there is no reason why the article should be refunded to draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse the discussion. I have no problem at this point if a draft is created using new and recent sources. SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse However, the sources don't really assert anything special--she's trained to compete, not that she actually has any sports accomplishments. Charitably, this is WP:TOOSOON, even without the other concerns raised above. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted as an WP:R3, despite being too old to be eligible under that criterion. As an WP:RFOR from a language without a clear connection to its target of Dyshidrosis its retention at RFD is highly questionable. Nonetheless it was marked as reviewed by an experienced editor and the community has made its desire to weigh in on redirects more than a few months old at RFD clear. Deleting admin is largely inactive and archived the request for undeletion without comment, as such I am beinging this here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:95CE:1437:1591:A9E6 (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn. R3 specifically only applies to
recently created
redirects. This was deleted almost two years after creation. This can be sent to RFD if desired. Frank Anchor 12:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC) - Overturn. While the R3 itself isn't particularly egregious, I found the admin's conduct after the fact to be inappropriate. WP:ADMINACCT is a policy, and it lists, among other things, failure to communicate as improper admin conduct. This admin not only ignored a valid question/petition by a user, but then went on to archive that question away from his Talk page. If you are unable or unwilling to respond to legitimate questions and requests, then hang up the mop and step away from admin actions until you are ready to be accountable for your actions. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn and send to RFD if someone feels it's necessary. This was not a valid speedy. Star Mississippi 13:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn - Definitely not recent as required by R3. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn. Incorrect application of R3. No biggie. Should have replied to the IP though.—Alalch E. 22:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- R3 is tediously out of date and should have been reformed years ago to split out foreign language redirects to their own criterion. The average lifecycle of those is: get created, get forgotten instantly, lurk around doing nothing for years on end, finally get slam-dunk deleted at RfD when somebody notices them. It's a colossal waste of everyone involved's time. WP:IAR is still a policy on this project, although most people seem to have forgotten that. Honestly, I do not care at all whether this redirect lives or dies. This is pure meaningless bureaucracy on the basis of a bad rule blindly applied. — Scott • talk 22:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds like many of the elements of WP:NEWCSD are met. We've gone through and tweaked or eliminated several in the past year or so, no reason to not do another... my only concern is whether this situation is frequent enough to be worth documenting as a new/revised CSD. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- It didn't get much traction when last discussed at WT:CSD, this past March. —Cryptic 05:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's really not a popular enough venue for discussion, going by the fact that only 6 people commented. RFOR itself originated from a centralized discussion in 2008 and the recent discussion deserved to be similarly publicized.
- I see the very obvious point of what the basic criterion for the need to retain a foreign-language redirect should be, that the target article demonstrates a connection to the foreign language, was completely missed. This is hardly a new idea - it just synthesizes this part of WP:R#DELETE #8 (added in 2011):
If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created.
- Going by the RFOR talk page, the last time I engaged on this topic was a decade ago. I may have enough energy now to give it a better try. — Scott • talk 15:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- It didn't get much traction when last discussed at WT:CSD, this past March. —Cryptic 05:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
finally get slam-dunk deleted at RfD when somebody notices them
?- How many such RfDs can you link. NEWCSDs need evidence to get people to agree. I reckon a dozen in a year would do it. If you can’t find them, generate them. IAR does not support CSD violations on cases that don’t matter. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- The A in IAR is for All! It doesn't come with criteria. More seriously though I'm sure I could pluck out a whole bunch of RFOR deletions, it's just a matter of having the wherewithal to go do that digging and be prepared to follow it up with a bunch of arguing. I'll put it on my to do list for the next time I have a burst of energy. — Scott • talk 12:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds like many of the elements of WP:NEWCSD are met. We've gone through and tweaked or eliminated several in the past year or so, no reason to not do another... my only concern is whether this situation is frequent enough to be worth documenting as a new/revised CSD. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Sidebar |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Overturn and trout (at least) the deleting admin. IAR is never a reason to speedy delete a page, especially when it is simply because one dislikes a policy that has an active consensus in support of it (as CSD does). Even if it were a valid reason to speedily delete a page then it must be cited as the reason for deleting the page, rather than lying in the deleting summary to hide your actions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh now you're accusing me of lying? I picked R3 because it was close enough. You also don't understand IAR, which doesn't surprise me in the least. In summary, get stuffed. — Scott • talk 19:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Close enough" is simply not a thing with speedy deletion - the criteria are explicitly intended to be interpreted narrowly so if it is unclear whether a page meets a criterion or not it doesn't. If you deleted a page for any reason other than R3 and you put R3 in the deletion summary that is either an error or intentionally misleading (also known as lying). Given that my interpretation of IAR with regards to speedy deletion matches the consensus in every relevant discussion I've been a part of, and your view is getting no support in this one, I can confidently state that there is no need for me to get stuffed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your track record of misplaced confidence is truly a work of unparalleled dedication. — Scott • talk 23:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The posture that everyone else but you does not understand IAR and that mere invective qualifies as argument is unlikely to advance the case you appear to be making. A thoughtful and intellectually honest analysis of the need for volume management as applied to foreign language redirects may be of value, however if this style is persisted in it will be more difficult to make that happen, and hence reduce the odds of consensus being found for a new CSD. I suppose it is possible your actual and stated preferences are at odds with each other, in which case I'll concede your rhetorical cleverness is greater then might be initially surmised, but the actual process of applied honest analysis will nonetheless be degraded. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:F0D4:D1E3:653B:B44C (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not everyone but me, but definitely you two. — Scott • talk 23:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- And everyone else who has so far participated on this page, or doubtless everyone else who disagrees with you, got it. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:596E:697B:FBFB:F73F (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not everyone but me, but definitely you two. — Scott • talk 23:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The posture that everyone else but you does not understand IAR and that mere invective qualifies as argument is unlikely to advance the case you appear to be making. A thoughtful and intellectually honest analysis of the need for volume management as applied to foreign language redirects may be of value, however if this style is persisted in it will be more difficult to make that happen, and hence reduce the odds of consensus being found for a new CSD. I suppose it is possible your actual and stated preferences are at odds with each other, in which case I'll concede your rhetorical cleverness is greater then might be initially surmised, but the actual process of applied honest analysis will nonetheless be degraded. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:F0D4:D1E3:653B:B44C (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your track record of misplaced confidence is truly a work of unparalleled dedication. — Scott • talk 23:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Close enough" is simply not a thing with speedy deletion - the criteria are explicitly intended to be interpreted narrowly so if it is unclear whether a page meets a criterion or not it doesn't. If you deleted a page for any reason other than R3 and you put R3 in the deletion summary that is either an error or intentionally misleading (also known as lying). Given that my interpretation of IAR with regards to speedy deletion matches the consensus in every relevant discussion I've been a part of, and your view is getting no support in this one, I can confidently state that there is no need for me to get stuffed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh now you're accusing me of lying? I picked R3 because it was close enough. You also don't understand IAR, which doesn't surprise me in the least. In summary, get stuffed. — Scott • talk 19:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn per the clear consensus above. One administrator is not entitled to put their personal interpretation of policy above the community's, and if they do so regularly they should be prevent from deleting pages entirely. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Relist. While not harbouring strong feelings about the outcome of this AFD, I believe that it was contentious and therefore should not have been closed after three days by a non-admin. Though it was "withdrawn by nominator", there was no consensus yet, and per WP:WITHDRAWN: "While the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have suggested an outcome besides keep [...], the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it". Geschichte (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think there's a better argument that this should have been closed as withdrawn instead, so that you could immediately start a new afd without the old one having any weight. —Cryptic 08:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment As the editor who closed the discussion, the sole delete !vote was cast after the nominator withdrew, the discussion should have been closed earlier. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 10:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. No, it "should" not have been closed earlier. Although it "may" have been closed, it never hurts to get more input. The nominator saying "withdraw" is not an automatic end to a discussion. Geschichte (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn (to “Withdrawn”). WP:SLAP the AfD nominator for the inadequate nomination. Allow a fresh nomination of better quality. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse end result but this should have been closed as “withdrawn” or “procedural keep.” This is a valid withdrawal as there were no delete/ATD votes at the time the nominator withdrew. With the close being on procedural grounds, there is no prejudice against immediate re-nomination. Frank Anchor 12:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Relisting is acceptable as well per OwenX, Alalch E, and others' interpretation of WP:WITHDRAWN, which I consider to be reasonable, though an optional new AFD with a better nomination statement is my first preference. Frank Anchor 12:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn and Relist - This was a bad non-admin close with both Keep and Delete votes and should have been allowed to run at least one week. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- This one's difficult because it was properly withdrawn before any delete !votes were posted and could have been closed as keep before then. I'll decline to bold any suggestion, but I think a new AfD is best. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist. Once the final Delete was cast, the AfD can no longer be speedy-closed as withdrawn, especially by a non-admin. The fact that it could have been speedy-closed earlier doesn't matter. Owen× ☎ 20:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for this comment. It's important that everyone understands that when formal prerequisites for a "withdrawn" close are met, but the nominator does not close themselves as "withdrawn", the next editor who could do so can still make a comment supporting an outcome other than keeping, and if they do so, then the discussion can no longer be closed as "withdrawn". —Alalch E. 21:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- It depends on what subsequent means in this context. I've always taken it to mean that you can withdraw if someone has !voted delete, but it can't be closed as withdrawn. In this instance it should have been clear to the petitioner that this was a withdrawn AfD as opposed to someone who !votes and then the nom wishes to withdraw, and a new AfD started. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Subsequent there means subsequent to the nomination. If subsequent to the deletion nomination there are, say, two keep !votes, the nominator can withdraw and close as "withdrawn", or, if the nominator does not do so and instead only leaves a comment that they withdraw, anyone else can close as "withdrawn", but they are not compelled to do so and, subsequent to the withdrawal comment, can add their !vote with any recommendation, and if that recommendation is anything other than keep, then no one can close as withdrawn anymore as the matter has become contentious again (just as it had been prior to the nominator's withdrawal), and the AfD proceeds as normal. So this AfD's outcome as "keep" can not be understood as a proper (speedy) keep from withdrawal, and the comments in this DRV suggesting that are wrong. I see that the closer has commented here saying:
As the editor who closed the discussion, the sole delete !vote was cast after the nominator withdrew, the discussion should have been closed earlier.
And that is wrong. There are no such shoulds. Closing as "keep" as if due to withdrawal under these circumstances was a substantial procedural error, compounded by the bad NAC, which is a procedural error in itself. So this was a very bad close. —Alalch E. 22:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)- You seem mighty confident that you're correct there. If someone has withdrawn their nomination without opposition, but maybe doesn't know they can self-close, it's potentially tendentious to vote !delete afterwards. SportingFlyer T·C 16:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Gotta WP:AGF. Where's the evidence, even hypothetically? —Alalch E. 22:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- You seem mighty confident that you're correct there. If someone has withdrawn their nomination without opposition, but maybe doesn't know they can self-close, it's potentially tendentious to vote !delete afterwards. SportingFlyer T·C 16:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Subsequent there means subsequent to the nomination. If subsequent to the deletion nomination there are, say, two keep !votes, the nominator can withdraw and close as "withdrawn", or, if the nominator does not do so and instead only leaves a comment that they withdraw, anyone else can close as "withdrawn", but they are not compelled to do so and, subsequent to the withdrawal comment, can add their !vote with any recommendation, and if that recommendation is anything other than keep, then no one can close as withdrawn anymore as the matter has become contentious again (just as it had been prior to the nominator's withdrawal), and the AfD proceeds as normal. So this AfD's outcome as "keep" can not be understood as a proper (speedy) keep from withdrawal, and the comments in this DRV suggesting that are wrong. I see that the closer has commented here saying:
- It depends on what subsequent means in this context. I've always taken it to mean that you can withdraw if someone has !voted delete, but it can't be closed as withdrawn. In this instance it should have been clear to the petitioner that this was a withdrawn AfD as opposed to someone who !votes and then the nom wishes to withdraw, and a new AfD started. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for this comment. It's important that everyone understands that when formal prerequisites for a "withdrawn" close are met, but the nominator does not close themselves as "withdrawn", the next editor who could do so can still make a comment supporting an outcome other than keeping, and if they do so, then the discussion can no longer be closed as "withdrawn". —Alalch E. 21:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn bad non-admin close and relist.—Alalch E. 21:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist per OwenX, Alalch E. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist - Withdrawn nominations are closed when there are no outstanding delete !votes because they are viewed as non-contentious. The moment there is a delete !vote, then it is contentious and cannot be closed early. For those viewing this situation as a quirk of timing, consider the case of an AFD that is withdrawn and closed immediately, any editor coming across the article and thinking it should be deleted is free to nominate for deletion. End result is still an open AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- …which is exactly why I voted to endorse with the option of starting a new AFD (particularly given the very weak rationale of the nominating statement) Frank Anchor 16:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Geschichte's comment can serve as the nomination after the relist. The relist comment can point to it and say to treat it as functionally equivalent to the nomination. —Alalch E. 20:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- …which is exactly why I voted to endorse with the option of starting a new AFD (particularly given the very weak rationale of the nominating statement) Frank Anchor 16:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to request the reopening of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in North America. All 4 commenters that supported delete mentioned that the topic isn't covered as a whole but rather individually by coutry (i.e. "no coverage of this subject as a whole", "Unable to find anything discussing this topic specifically", "This article should not exist unless sources can be found that specifically discuss racism in North America as a whole"). In my comment, among other things, I mentioned that Google Scholar has 867 hits for "racism in North America". Many, if not all of these sources deal with racism in North America as a whole and would be out of place inside each individual country's article. Here are a few: "Transnational Perspectives on the History of Racism in North America", "Imperialism and Settler Colonialism: Xenophobia and Racism in North America" (let's remember that California was Mexico a mere 200 years ago), "Racism and the mental health of East Asian diasporas in North America: a scoping review", and I could go on. The discussion was closed a few hours after I made my point and before anyone else had a chance to either counter it or to agree with it and review their positions. I feel a relist would have been more reasonable. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Relist This seems like a blatant failure of the AfD process and is making me rethink my "no, AfD is fine" comment at the does AfD need review. The first source which comes up in my search was a scholarly article which clearly looked at racism in the continent as a whole, the article's clearly a valid summary article, and the only failure I can see is that those advocating for the article to be kept didn't demonstrate the available sources clearly enough, so we've lost an article on a notable topic that has been in a relatively stable state since 2008. Being an "unnecessary conflagration" isn't really a deletion rationale, either. This needs to be relisted so more sources such as [8] can be reviewed. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Involved comment as nom - I was somewhat surprised by the close, and would not object to a relist. But comments like
we've lost an article on a notable topic
so badly miss the nomination argument that I must respond. None of the content was about "racism in North America" continent-wide, it was a series of vignettes about various countries in North America that were inferior to the per-country articles. The notable content is already included at other articles. It is about how to organize this information; the claim that "there are at least two scholarly articles that use this phrase" does not imply that we must organize this information in a specific way to maximize article-count. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)- If you look at the topic's history, the per country articles were valid splits of this parent topic, and the topic has been covered by sources. There wasn't really a proper reason for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse as a valid close. This Deletion Review asks the reviewers whether the close was a valid close, not whether it was the close that they would have done. Relist would have been valid, but not the only possible close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Allow Review of Draft for originator to submit draft that would involve splitting out some material. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: see, that's part of the problem. It wasn't a delete but a BLAR, so the history is still there. Reverting it and adding robust references that solve the "coverage of this subject as a whole" would be good editorial practice for all intents and purposes. But reverting a BLAR after consensus in AfD would certainly qualify as diruptive editing. So that's where we're at at this point: by ignoring an opinion that contradicted the central argument of those defending deletion, this closure keeps me from proceding with what, IMHO, would be good editorial practice even in the eyes of at least some of those who supported deletion (
"This article should not exist unless sources can be found that specifically discuss racism in North America as a whole"
). The one part that doesn't fit in all of this is the claim that there was consensus to close that AfD as it was. So here we are. Rkieferbaum (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: see, that's part of the problem. It wasn't a delete but a BLAR, so the history is still there. Reverting it and adding robust references that solve the "coverage of this subject as a whole" would be good editorial practice for all intents and purposes. But reverting a BLAR after consensus in AfD would certainly qualify as diruptive editing. So that's where we're at at this point: by ignoring an opinion that contradicted the central argument of those defending deletion, this closure keeps me from proceding with what, IMHO, would be good editorial practice even in the eyes of at least some of those who supported deletion (
- Comment. It was a very bold close. It happens to match what my !vote would have been.
Unless overturned, and further discussion belongs at Talk:Racism by country. Do not authorise draftspace drafting from DRV, that is beyond the scope of DRV and is a bad thing. A fork to draftspace should NOT be allowed unless done by consensus established at Talk:Racism by country. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC) - Comment I fail to see how there was a problem with the nominated version that could not have been corrected through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what you want. There was a discussion, which led to the article becoming a redirect, with the content not already in other articles being moved elsewhere. That is "regular editing" in my book. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- The complaint was that this wasn't a comprehensive overview nor a set navigation list, to oversimplify things. It could have been edited into either one. You're absolutely correct that a redirect is regular editing in that it does not require admin tools, but it seems to me that in this case even a simpler solution was not contemplated. This is specifically a comment, rather than a !vote to overturn or anything else, because the outcome isn't terrible... I'm just wondering why these alternatives do not appear to have been considered. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what you want. There was a discussion, which led to the article becoming a redirect, with the content not already in other articles being moved elsewhere. That is "regular editing" in my book. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Just noting that this discussion was relisted twice and even though a third relisting is possible, many participants are irritated by relisting more than twice (and some are even irritated at one relisting!). So, I think this discussion was given plenty of time although I understand how the Rkieferbaum would have wanted to see a response to their opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- It’s the comment-free pointless relisting that’s exasperating. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- The decision to relist should be guided by the potential for building consensus. If there's a clear path forward, relisting could very well make sense regardless of the number of previous listings. After a couple of relistings, it may often become evident that consensus is unlikely, in which case closing with rough or no consensus could be preferable. But a third relisting may be warranted if new information emerges that could facilitate consensus, in which case this should be articulated when relisting. The aim for consensus (rather than voting or arbitrary closings) is what makes participating in AfDs constructive and enjoyable. Rkieferbaum (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- It’s the comment-free pointless relisting that’s exasperating. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- So, I can't find a procedural fault here. I don't see sufficient grounds to relist a discussion that had already been relisted twice; and the close did fully reflect the consensus at the debate; so I have to agree that the deletion process was correctly followed. But I also agree with SportingFlyer that this was an extreme outlier from our normal range of outcomes about content that has this many academic sources, and I agree with JClemens that the problems would have been better solved with the edit button than with redirection. We don't normally let people take a mulligan on an AfD outcome, but in this case I can see good reasons why we should? I'm uncomfortable with leaving things how they are, in any case.—S Marshall T/C 08:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Wesley L. McDonald Distinguished Statesman and Stateswoman of Aviation Award (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
WP:JUSTAPOLICY WP:JUSTA Nayyn (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse Well attended discussion (for a CfD), policy-based reasoning, only the appellant disagreed with the outcome. I don't see how that could have been closed any other way, and specifically endorse this as a valid NAC. I'm sorry the outcome wasn't the way you would have liked Nayyn. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse - This was a valid close, and the most appropriate close. The argument that the appellant sort of gives is more applicable to this appeal than to the CFD. WP:JUSTAPOLICY or WP:JUSTA mean that an editor made a vague wave at a policy, but this is a vague wave at an essay on arguments to avoid. Also, this is not CFD round 2, but being one of the highest honors is not the same as being a defining characteristic. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - In the Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions essay, it says:
. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above.
- Looks like a WP:1AM situation. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. WP:OCAWARD is the relevant guideline in this case. There was no need for the Delete !voters to add prose to what already was a coherent, if terse, argument. Owen× ☎ 20:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. WP:ATA is WP:JUSTANESSAY and many "arguments to avoid" according to this nice and optimistic essay are quite far from being discountable when understood in the context of a whole actual discussion. And that essay fails to provide nuance in that respect, generalizing certain typical forms of expression as "unconvincing", "infirm" etc. But DRV is not primarily concerned with whether the arguments were "convincing": The arguments are analyzed for what they truly are, not as how they are likely to convince and whether the comments that carry them have a satisfying form. An argument packaged in a comment that is not convincing can be identical to the argument contained in a comment that is convincing. DRV is a post-mortem. In this post-mortem, stronger literature is needed than an optimistic essay. These WP:JUSTAPOLICY comments must be accepted as contributive to a consensus. The comments invoke a relevant guideline and are okay. There was a consensus.—Alalch E. 22:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Heer Da Hero (closed)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The AFD I initiated was closed with a "keep" decision, but I've concerns. Some IPs (WP:LOUTSOCK) voted "keep" based on some WP:ROTM coverage, which I countered. And just before closure, @Libraa2019 voted "keep" without adequate time for source assessment., @Libraa has a history of throwing 'keep' votes based on ROTM coverage. If possible, reopening the AFD would allow me to assess the sources provided by @Libraa. I've always understood AFD closures to be based on policy, not vote counts alone, and this closure is demotivating. Fwiw, the page was also created and heavily edited by UPE sock farms. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Article on a Utah-based kidvid company, deleted back in early November 2017 for lack of WP:CORPDEPTH thanks to this AFD; an early July 2022 re-creation attempt was also shot down. After some 5–7 years, looks like WP:Library may be coming to the rescue. (What follows below may be enough for now to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG/WP:NMEDIA—lest we look a bit harder beyond lots of natter on their telemarketing practices?)
XPosted from WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 383#Feature Films for Families and User talk:Liz/Archive 47#Undeletion request: Feature Films for Families (both from February 2023). As an added bonus since our last appeal attempt, here's what AVID Logos has to say on their recent fate (with relevant WP links added):
From here, perhaps the S.S. Cunard (talk · contribs) may give us an extra hand this time around? Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
https://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324637 https://health.clevelandclinic.org/anal-sex-safety 202.134.11.238 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The page was deleted under the G11 and A7 criteria. There was no communication before the deletion. The subject is the CEO of a top Bank in Nigeria (Wema Bank) and so qualifies to have a Wiki page. He is notable enough. I would like to be able to edit the article in a draft space to fix the G11 issue before seeking approval to move to mainspace Michael Ugbodu (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Hello, I noticed that deletion of this article was closed with no consensus. This is very surprising to me. I have spent three days to investigate it and came to conclusion that it was a hoax. Moreover, the statement in its first paragraph is completely wrong. Please reconsider your decision or provide reason(s) for keeping that article which is full of false statements. HeritageGuardian (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
- Category:Dominican Republic people of European American descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
That category was being used for Dominicans descended from United States citizens of European descent, aka White Americans (minus Middle Easterners), it wasn't used for "White Dominicans" as claimed by the deletion nominator. Even, there is still a separate category for Dominicans descended from African Americans, aka Black Americans (Category:Dominican Republic people of African American descent) as anyone can see it in the parent category Dominican Republic people of American descent since that parent category was subcategorized into different recognized American ethnic groups. This category was deleted based on a misunderstanding, maybe it just needed some clarification in the cat page. ★ Iñaki ★ (Talk page) ★ 02:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- (as participant to the discussion) It does not look like a misunderstanding. I noted in the discussion that articles are already in e.g. Category:Dominican Republic people of French descent when it is about someone with French (i.e. European) ancestors. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle what do you think about overturning this CfD and you nominating with the correct rationale, as only you made a relevant comment supporting deletion. Others simply did not get the facts right, so the DRV nominator is right that there was, predominantly, a misunderstanding. —Alalch E. 09:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why are you discounting my comment so readily? SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I legitimately can not see how you made a
relevant comment supporting deletion
in the absence of an intelligible rationale coming from you and in the context of the erroneous nomination.—Alalch E. 12:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)- There was nothing erroneous about the nomination as far as I can tell, and any good closer in the category space would understand I'm supporting the arguments which have been made before me. SportingFlyer T·C 17:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Arguments were made about how the nomination was erroneous in this deletion review already prior to this thread, which arguments were then followed up by more arguments how it was erroneous (at this time: the DRV nominator's statement, my 09:55, 6 June comment, Extraordinary Writ's 19:27, 7 June comment). Marcocapelle clarified his !vote here distinguishing it from the erroneous nomination so that his comment can be understood not to rest on the nominator's objectively incorrect assertions, but you haven't distinguished your comment from the erroneous nomination, and as you, in your !vote, made a reference to White Dominicans, which is a reference to the nominator's incorrect assertions, and there's no other intelligible rationale contained in your comment, your comment can not be seen separately from the erroneous rationale. So, as I said, you
did not get the facts right
. It doesn't mean that this was a good category, but it means that it wasn't a good CfD. —Alalch E. 12:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Arguments were made about how the nomination was erroneous in this deletion review already prior to this thread, which arguments were then followed up by more arguments how it was erroneous (at this time: the DRV nominator's statement, my 09:55, 6 June comment, Extraordinary Writ's 19:27, 7 June comment). Marcocapelle clarified his !vote here distinguishing it from the erroneous nomination so that his comment can be understood not to rest on the nominator's objectively incorrect assertions, but you haven't distinguished your comment from the erroneous nomination, and as you, in your !vote, made a reference to White Dominicans, which is a reference to the nominator's incorrect assertions, and there's no other intelligible rationale contained in your comment, your comment can not be seen separately from the erroneous rationale. So, as I said, you
- There was nothing erroneous about the nomination as far as I can tell, and any good closer in the category space would understand I'm supporting the arguments which have been made before me. SportingFlyer T·C 17:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I legitimately can not see how you made a
- Why are you discounting my comment so readily? SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle what do you think about overturning this CfD and you nominating with the correct rationale, as only you made a relevant comment supporting deletion. Others simply did not get the facts right, so the DRV nominator is right that there was, predominantly, a misunderstanding. —Alalch E. 09:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn. The nomination was clearly and objectively erroneous and the comments followed this erroneous reasoning, with the exception of Marcocapelle's comment, but that is only one !vote."European American descent" part in the category name clearly refers to European Americans, citizens of the United States of European descent, to this is a category for articles about Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S. for whom their American ancestors are of European descent, i.e. European Americans. So when the nominator said
it seems that this is not intended for Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S.
this was absolutely incorrect.In spite of this, Marcocapelle reasons that we should not have such a category and that the two layers of descent should be compressed into one, so if someone is Dominican with French American descent, the category should be Category:Dominican Republic people of French descent. This is a fine opinion to have, but consensus did not form around this view, as all of the remaining participation revolved around the erroneous rationale. So there was no consensus to delete. My suggestion would be to renominate with a valid rationale.—Alalch E. 09:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)- I'm fine with relisting too, but starting a new discussion with a new nomination would be better. —Alalch E. 23:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- These were the articles in the category at the time of deletion. I think Alalch is right that
Looking at the content of this category, it seems that this is not intended for Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S.
simply wasn't correct: the people in question did have white ancestors in the U.S., which is why they were added to the category. The real question is whether 1) residents of the Dominican Republic 2) whose ancestors are of European descent and 3) whose ancestors resided in the U.S. is one intersection too far, as Marcocapelle suggested. I suspect the answer is yes, but the CfD didn't really get into that, and since we have a good-faith request I'd probably just relist for further discussion. (Whatever arguments apply to this category probably also apply to the African-American category mentioned above.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC) - I'm in the same space as Extraordinary Writ. Relist to get a proper consensus, which I would hope will give weight to the overcategorization argument. Stifle (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Get rid of it and all similar categories Why should Wikipedia categorize people based on their ancestry? We don't know the ancestry of 99% of BLP subjects. For example, Category:Dominican Republic people of African American descent contains Max Puig who is also in the category Category:Dominican Republic people of Italian descent. But he is also in Dominican Republic people of Catalan descent, Dominican Republic people of Haitian descent, People of Ligurian descent, Dominican Republic people of Dutch descent and Dominican Republic people of Turks and Caicos Islands descent... Who gives a shit? We should remove this information about non-notable people. Do we really want to list everyone's ancestry for thousands of generations until everyone is from Africa? This obsession is unhealthy and insane. We have no reliable sources that give detailed information on the ancestry of anyone alive today, unless perhaps if you are a Habsburger or similar (and even in that case we only know a fragment). It is weird and potentially offensive to label people incorrectly based on flimsy evidence, notoriously unreliable amateur genealogical research and looks. Why do we not require sources for categorization? Just categorize people on their nationality/nationalities if there are reliable sources. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.". Polygnotus (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)