No action (and close). Whoever is pretty sure that the subject is now notable can recreate the article. Whoever is not sure can pursue AfC (see Draft:Brooke Monk). There is no need to comment on the permissibility of recreation, the close wasn't challenged so there is no need to endorse, and a refund was not requested so there's no need to comment on undeleting, but being able to see what the page looked like via the Wayback Machine, I am noting that the deleted content was bad, and there are no sources worth extracting.—Alalch E.16:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first two of these survived RfD and then were deleted out of process by an admin with a long recent history of deletions being overturned at DRV. The third was never previously discussed but the fact that the first two survived means its not uncontroversial. These deletions need to be undone. * Pppery *it has begun...15:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"an admin with a long recent history of deletions being overturned at DRV". How long? And is it relevant to this particular deletion? What exactly are you trying to say? Deb (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn out-of-process deletions. All three deletion are out-of-process deletions (G6 is inscribed in the log, but G6 doesn't have anything to do with these deletions), but the first two are especially actively contrary to process as they were subjects of very nice RfDs that thoughtfully dealt with those two redirects.—Alalch E.15:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, to save anyone else having to go delving to work out what this is about:
April 4, 1968 is American for 4 April 1968, on which date Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated. The RfD is here.
September 26, 1963 is American for 26 September 1963, on which date not much of any great import happened. The RfD is here.
June 7, 2000 is American for 7th June 2000, on which date not much of any great import happened. There's no RfD to review.
The criteria for G6 are here in case anyone wants to review them. Deletion review interprets the criteria for speedy deletion narrowly and restores if there's doubt.
Overturn and a question that I should probably know the answer to: Do we notate MfD results anywhere in a redirect's talk page? I can't imagine Deb would actively have controverted two recent, reasonably well attended MfD discussions on purpose. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFD, not MFD, and yes but not consistently. The 1963 redir was so noted, the 1968 wasn't. Not that that makes the 1968 deletion any less careless: the RFD was clearly visible in the history - there were only eight revisions - and the speedy tag ("Another one of many useless redirects (now largely deleted) created by a now-indeffed user from an implausible typo") was so inapplicable that I'd not just have declined, not just have marked the declination as "refuse" as I occasionally do to indicate that I'll bring it here if another admin goes ahead and deletes it anyway, I'd have rolled it back for being indistinguishable from vandalism. —Cryptic08:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn. G6 speedy deletions have to be uncontroversial, and the fact they are listed here makes it clear that they are not. Stifle (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notified the editor who tagged these redirects for speedy deletion that this discussion was occurring. Although the discussion is focused on the deletion of these pages, I think there is useful information for them to read over. LizRead!Talk!04:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I nominated these redirects for deletion as two out of them, if I recall well, were created (and the third one edited) by a user sanctioned for creating oodles useless redirects (GabrielPenn4223 – see User talk). I admit I didn't check the nomination history, however I did check neighbouring dates and they did not exist, so speedy'ing these articles seemed a no-brainer. I still believe they are useless and they needlessly clutter the search box, and will be eventually deleted, but since Wikipedia is increasingly turning into a bureaucracy, I understand why some editors feel compelled to use their infinite free time and follow the recommended procedures to the dot. Note that I did not nominate the articles under G6 but under a custom rationale providing a detailed explanation; no idea why G6 was relied on, however those who have argued for an overturn based on the narrow scope of G6 might like to revisit the matter. — kashmīrīTALK11:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your custom rationale for speedy deletion "Another one of many useless redirects (now largely deleted) created by a now-indeffed user from an implausible typo. Note that we don't keep redirects for all possible dates in all possible notations, and it wasn't said why we should make an exception for 26 September 1963, 4 April 1968 and 7 July 2000". does not relate to any valid speedy deletion criterion either. It's closest to R3, but that applies only to recently created redirects - these were created over three years prior to your nomination. Speedy deletion criteria only apply when all revisions of a page are eligible for that criteria, so you should check the page history and talk page before nominating (and the reviewing administrator must check before deletion).
Remember also that the speedy deletion criteria, interpreted narrowly, are the only situations in which an administrator is authorised to delete a page without discussion, if a page you think should be deleted doesn't meet one or more criteria then prod (if applicable) or XfD are your only options. In this case your nomination was also factually inaccurate for the first two as the RfDs did say why exceptions should be made for those dates. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point being raised by those wishing to discuss these three redirects in detail. Please feel free to restore them, then renominate for deletion in due procedure. They will likely end up deleted anyway, as they are useless, just it will take several hours combined of people typing on Wikipedia, rather with little productivity. I get it that that's how bureaucracy looks like, and you'll have to excuse me I'm passing on that. — kashmīrīTALK14:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus of the previous discussion was that they were not useless, which is why we do not let individual editors/admins speedy delete pages except in the most obvious cases. If not deleting pages that consensus says should not be deleted sounds like bureaucracy to you, then please consider finding something else to do on Wikipedia than interacting with deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
April 4, 1968 was not created by that user, and Facts707 would no doubt be surprised to find that they're "now-indeffed" and that the redirects they've created are "now largely deleted". It should - but apparently doesn't - go without saying that it wasn't "created... from an implausible typo" either, since it's not a typo at all. About the only words in your deletion rationale that I can pick out as accurate are "Another one of many... redirects". —Cryptic04:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair we don't keep redirects for all possible dates in all possible notations is accurate too, however as we don't delete all of them either it's not relevant to whether these redirects should be deleted (speedily or otherwise). Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This was kept at MfD. Two years later an admin deleted it, asserting based on their own original research that it was not in fact a hoax. This is procedurally inappropriate as admins do not have the authority to unilaterally overrule deletion discussions and the page should be restored. * Pppery *it has begun...23:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn out-of-process deletion which is the most similar to a G6 but which circumvents the last deletion discussion which pertains to the page. The edit history of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia in 2022 shows that there was significant disagreement about this and editors were removing and readding the entry, finally removed in this edit (see the earlier one for an actual rationale: diff). Whether this is a certifiable hoax or not can be decided in a new MfD. As an archived hoax page, it is a traditional and legitimate projectspace item, and needs to be discussed accordingly. If editors in the MfD can not agree that it is a hoax, and some substantively argue in good faith that is not a hoax, and it looks like 'no consensus' could be the outcome, the page should be deleted by default instead of kept. If editors roughly agree that it is a hoax after all, MfD should result in keeping.—Alalch E.13:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, when such pages are discussed in MfD, the burden of deleting is on the nominator who must shake up the certainty of the page being a hoax. If multiple editors participating in that process (not commenting or edit warring somewhere else) no longer think that it's hoax, there should not have to be a consensus that the page is not a hoax, but a lack of consensus that it is a hoax should cause the page to no longer be seen as a suitable hoax example that we want to use as a point-of-reference-for-a-hoax. But the arguments need to be made in the appropriate forum where they can be appropriately seen and countered. —Alalch E.14:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pppery for notifying me of this discussion -- I'm the admin who deleted the page. It was deleted following a request on the Administrator's Noticeboard to delete the Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real page because it was no longer listed on LOHOW. I reviewed a discussion on the LOHOW talk page that showed the individual's actual name and other data as written in the article was not a hoax. (The person's real name, dates and places of both birth and death are available for anyone to see on the SSA index and database.) In fact, the unsourced original Ruda Real page could have been considered a WP:BLP violation from the start and speedy deleted as a WP:G10 attack page when it was created or subsequently thereafter. Additionally, it should have remained deleted following the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruda Real per Wikipedia policy on biographies. We must always exercise care when dealing with non-notable bios. Note that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" on biographies of non-notable persons -- this includes their living family members. Note also "the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." Wikipedia's policy about being very cautious when creating possibly disparaging pages about real persons outweighs any desire to keep articles for curiosity sake. I concede that it was an error on my part not to have explained my reasoning on the LOHOW talk page. I'm sorry about that. But "unsourced contentious material... must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The article should remain deleted. — CactusWriter (talk)23:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn grossly out-of-process deletion. Deletion discussion was not on correct forum. Deleting admin unilaterally deleted this page with no WP:QUORUM and cited a 2021 AFD as justification for deleting. However, there was consensus to keep in a more recent MFD. This can be sent back to MFD after the subject page is fully restored. FrankAnchor11:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ms. Derek is an Emmy winner (and three-time nominee) [1] as well as a published author. She received significant press coverage around the time her memoir came out. [2] Her screenwriting filmography is extensive. I don't think this page should've been deleted when there are far less notable people with Wikipedia entries. Yours6700 (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to draft. The appellant hasn't provided any valid reason to overturn or relist. However, seeing as there were only two participants at the AfD, WP:QUORUM was not met, and this should be treated as a soft deletion, so the page qualifies for instant REFUND. That said, even though the AfD was seven years ago, I still prefer to see it go through AfC, seeing as current sourcing is weak. Owen×☎00:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t Endorse, due to tainted nominator and lack of quorum. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC). Endorse the AfD, old as it is. Restore to draftspace, where the appellant will have to learn about collecting quality sources and building encyclopedic content. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend “restore to draftspace”, not having seen the article, so that it can be checked before returning to mainspace.
Overturn to soft delete per OwenX as WP:QUORUM was not met. Article must be restored upon any reasonable request, such as this DRV. If it was not eligible for soft delete (e.g. if previously PRODed), then overturn to no consensus as QUORUM was still not met. Either way, I agree with OwenX that this should be restored to draftspace to allow interested editors to work on it first, as the sources are weak. FrankAnchor16:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-Overturn the AFD to a Soft Delete, as per OwenX. (In retrospect, there is now only one Delete, because the nominator is a blocked sockpuppeteer.) There was no mention in the AFD of the Emmy, which meets biographical notability as a major award, or of the 1982 newspaper article, which is significant coverage. So the appellant should be able to develop a good draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we've got to overturn this. As SmokeyJoe Robert McClenon sorry Robert correctly points out, and there was no way for Kurykh to know this at the time, the nominator at that AfD isn't a good faith Wikipedian, but serial sockpuppetteer User:Rms125a@hotmail.com using an obfuscated signature. The community banned him two years after that AfD but he was already showing the behaviours that got him banned in 2017. And the first boldface "delete" was the nominator. That leaves Beemer69's !vote, and although there's every indication that Beemer69 is a responsible, good faith Wikipedian, we wouldn't let a deletion stand on her !vote alone. I'm at overturn and restore as an irretrievably tainted AfD, with no prejudice against renomination by someone else.—S MarshallT/C22:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per S Marshall but undelete to draft because, this being a BLP, and as I was able to determine via web.archive.org, there are no references, there's only an IMDb link, and the content might be outdated. The nominator in this DRV who is apparently interested in this article can do the minimum required work (or anyone else can) to ensure article space suitability.—Alalch E.13:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was needlessly taken down due to a consesus being reached entirely composed of incredibly foolish & self contradictory logic. The very weak reasoning was that this would establish Wikipedia as a newsfeed, which is entirely untrue. If it were true, then the grand majority of information found on Wikipedia must also be removed, as that information is also constantly changing & its respective pages require heavy maintenance & consistent alteration to allow that information to be as accurate & up to date as possible. This list was factual information, an encyclopedia is where 1 is supposed to find factual information. Its suppression & removal from the encyclopedia is incredibly counterintuitive & calls to question the legitimacy of this platform, as all the information that should be easily accessible here is now for whatever reason doubted as having a place in an encyclopedia. The 2018 RfC should also not be invoked as reasoning to supress these articles, as that too was plagued with falsehoods & very weak & ill-informed rationale. This list was never in any violation of any Wikipedia guideline & should instantly be fully reinstated permanently immediately without question. Its suppression calls to question Wikipedia's legitimacy as an encyclopedia where information of all sorts is supposed to be easily accessible. That some readers may find this information irrelevant is not a reason to suppress this information, nor deprive other readers of this information who may find it useful for a variety of purposes. Readers who belive this is irrelevent to them should simply disregard it, but not call for its needless removal.
There was not enough time to allow for more reasoning to be voiced in support of keeping this information up. The arguments in favor of deletion were plagued entirely with pure falsehoods, such as false claims that this list was in violation of various Wikipedia guidelines, & falsely claimed that this information requiring maintenance establishes Wikipedia as a newsfeed. Wikipeida is an encyclopedia meant to house a variety of information, & airline destinations, former, current & planned, should be among the pieces of that should have a permanent home here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9bcc:7810:1406:d05e:1342:a28a (talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, because I can see you care a lot about this, but there's been plenty of time for discussion. We talked about airline destinations in general, in a central place, for 23 days here and the community reached a clear conclusion that we don't want them. Then we talked about the United Airlines destinations specifically, in the discussion you're complaining about, for seven days which is the full amount of time allotted for deletion discussions, and the community reached a clear conclusion that we don't want them. I'm afraid the situation is that we've heard these arguments that you raise, and we disagree. I hope that doesn't make you too unhappy.—S MarshallT/C09:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That readers don't want this information is not reason enough to deprive other readers of this information who may find this information to be valuable or of other legitimate purpose that others may simply not see. To readers who don't want to see it, they should just simply disregard it but leave it be for other readers who look for this information, for whatever reason it may serve valuable to them. This list must be reinstated, along with the other 2 also needlessly suppressed. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that were true, there was far worse logic applied to the arguments favoring deletion. Because of those very weak reasons, this information is no longer anywhere on the internet. Where else would it be easily accessible if not for an encyclopedia? It's become extinct thanks to the foolish reasoning applied to its deletion & until its reinstatement, it will remain extinct on the internet needlessly. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the community's decision is wrong. I think the information is useful, encyclopedic, relevant, and easy to maintain, that this overcomes the negatives of it being "a lot of information", and that it is far more encyclopedic than swathes of articles about baseball leagues (for example). But the community has come to a consensus, at the requests for comment and at this AFD. Accordingly, User:Explicit was required to close the AFD as delete. I am saddened by this, because I think it's a net negative for the encyclopedia. But since it's in line with the community's decisions, I must, with the greatest reluctance, endorse the closure. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per User:OwenX and as per User:Stifle - The community has made it clear that a rough consensus considers these airline destination lists to be non-encyclopedic. As with Stifle, I am not sure whether I agree, but it is better to let the majority rule than to continue to fight over airline destination tables that a majority of editors think are indiscriminate information and so violate Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTTRAVEL doesn't apply here, that's for information better suited to travel guides, and no travel guide would include this information. A specialty text might have before the internet. SportingFlyerT·C16:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's another AfD going on at the moment which I'm admittedly involved in which is at the very least challenging the result reached at the now six year old RfC, which honestly wasn't very well attended for something that would create policy saying an entire swath of articles should be deleted. While I agree the closer reached a correct decision for this particular AfD, depending on the result of the active AfD, I'd be more than willing to draftify these articles. SportingFlyerT·C16:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the AfD nominator. The outcome was rooted in Wikipedia policy and a consensus that had arisen over multiple discussions, including over 20 prior AfDs. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse essentially per the above. I am not at all certain this is the best choice overall, but there was certainly a consensus to delete present in the challenged discussion. Note that this discussion should probably apply to all three articles considered in this AfD, and as Liz notes above should probably also reflect the more well attended AfD currently ongoing. That is, an endorse here based on this AfD should not be interpreted as argument that these article should not be allowed if con consensus for their deletion is later found to exist. (I hope that makes sense). Eluchil404 (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Wikipedia consistency does not want to be a tour guide resource. That is not an encyclopedia. A list like this needs to be timeless, not tied to now. If the list is not covering the history of these destinations being serviced, then it gets deleted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was consensus to delete after a normal discussion period. Everything was done correctly and there is no significant new information (a new RfC with a different outcome might've been that information).—Alalch E.23:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, largely per Stifle. I agree this is useful information, but the community has determined - not absurdly - that it does not fit Wikipedia policies. To me, one of the huge successes of Wikipedia is not only the encyclopedia that is being built, but a vivid demonstration that the Wiki collaborative model works. To me, this is a perfect example of material that could be very usefully maintained using the Wiki model somewhere, just with different specific policies. Martinp (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The last deletion discussion is over ten years old, and in that time Redban has continued podcast hosting and publishing, and is now the part-owner of the Sunset Strip Comedy Club. There are many sources covering his more recent works. (The previous closing admin has been inactive several years so I won't notify them.) SmolBrane (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The deletion is old and there is a good chance the subject is now notable enough to merit an article. I'm willing to draftify this to see how it can be improved and brought up to acceptable standards. The main-space name is create protected anyway, so there's no way this article would appear in main space by itself unless a reviewer approves it. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refund either to draftspace or user sandbox. This should have been non-controversial and doesn't need our formal input. Of course all current standards apply when put into mainspace directly or via AfC. Jclemens (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation is disallowed via salting (variations include Redban, Brian Reichle, Brian "Redban" Reichle, Brian Redban Reichle; no evidence of recent gaming of titles at plausible names, so for example there were no recreation attempts at ... [you know where to look at]; so no extant threat of tendentious impetus). Allow recreation by reducing the salting level (or totally unsalt). No requirement or suggestion to use AfC, an optional process, and there is no COI. Only refund outdated BLP content to draft if it is sourced and not garbage. If it is unsourced outdated BLP content do not undelete.—Alalch E.23:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and unsalt. It has been years since the aforementioned attempted creations and my own research online makes this a promising article. TLAtlak02:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Noting for the record that the creator of the article, 2 keep !voters, and the "no consensus" closer have all been sockblocked. QueenofHearts16:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This non-admin closure by Coookiemonster mentioning "No consensus has been made for the aforementioned areas, and given that there has been extensive discussion over two weeks and that no more votes have occurred in the past few days, a second RELIST will likely be a waste of time." is not reasonable. The right call would have been to relist the AfD for the 2nd time to get more policy based arguments, but instead, Coookiemonster closed it too soon. The article on Justin Jin has received over 800 views with a daily average of 40+, which is significant traction
considering it doesn't appear as the first hit in a Google search. I believe many other editors would have placed their arguments if it were relisted. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The Delete views may or may not have garnered consensus, but deletion was certainly a potential outcome, making this a BADNAC, especially for an editor who has been here less than three months. Owen×☎11:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak relist this is clearly a WP:BADNAC as the result is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. evidenced by several valid keep and delete votes, along with the closer admitting the close was complicated and there is justification that is fairly evenly split between both sides. Second relists are very common. My !vote is only a weak relist because I agree that there is a strong possibility relisting will not sway consensus either way, citing the large attendance this AFD has already received. However, that is not a decision that should be made to a non-admin closer. It should be left to an admin, particularly one who has experience closing contentious discussions. FrankAnchor16:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: An article controversially closed as "No consensus" while there was a clear assessment of probable "deletion". Pure situation of WP:VOTE and non assessment of argument by the closer. Just WP:BADNAC, and will require an admin closure. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk)22:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to advise the closer a few days ago to be more careful closing AFD discussions considering their relative inexperience, especially in administrative areas and I feel like my advice was ignored. Another incident like this and I think we might need a topic ban. If no advice had been given to the editor, I'd say this was just a well-intentioned mistake. But the fact that I told them not to handle "close calls" means, to me, that the editor doesn't listen to advice. This has happened before in AFDLand with other overly eager editors and it hasn't ended well. Let's hope this Deletion review gets the message across. No opinion on what should happen here as I very well may be closing this discussion if it gets relisted again and I don't want to be considered "involved". LizRead!Talk!23:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to all, I should have been more careful. I think I will stop closing AFD in the future because this happened. I tried to look more close into Non-admin_closure after @Liz warned me but I got in over my head. — 🍪CookieMonster00:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for saying this, User:Coookiemonster. Being able to see when you were wrong is a key attribute for a closer and even some of our top closers don't have it. Because you have seen you were wrong, it's for you as AfD closer to do the paperwork. See the second limb of "speedy closes" under Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews. The sequence is: (1) revert your AfD close; (2) relist the AfD with an appropriate explanation; and then (3) close this DRV as "speedy overturn".—S MarshallT/C09:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other best advice I can give is that AfD in general needs participants more than it needs closers. A single additional !vote may be very helpful in helping an administrator reach a consensus. SportingFlyerT·C16:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse. On the one hand I think that Cookie was correct in their assessment of consensus, on the other, I agree that this AfD was a poor candidate for a NAC both because a non-admin 's inability to close as delete could lead to an unconscious bias against deletion and because it's contentious enough that it is likely to get taken to DRV in any case and certain to in case of a NAC which is unlikely to be sustained as it requires a judgement call based on the careful weighing of comments. Note that I hate giving this advice, I thought such AfD's were obvious NC closes that I should be able to make before I had the bit, and I would love to make them now that I have given it up. But experience has shown that they don't stick and thus don't save time or effort compared to waiting for an admin to close them in the first place. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate NAC and handle the closure and closer issues separately. For the latter, it appears a message has been, perhaps belatedly, received. For the former, any admin can close, to include substantially reiterating this editor's reasoning. Jclemens (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, a little weakly. This is obv WP:BADNAC, but I feel that CookieMonster's rationale is mostly correct. After being closed at no consensus and indexed on the search engines, the article has been viewed nearly 1,000 times a day. This is not an indicator of notability but perhaps one of popularity... there was also an extensive discussion over two weeks. On Wikipedia, I've learned not to rush things and we should not WP:RUSHDELETE, I will keep this on my watchlist and after WP:2MONTHS will nominate this article for deletion. Separately, ensure that they do not close another contentious AfD again. TLAtlak02:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was indexed when the AFD was started, not when it was closed. No one is rushing to delete here, as the point of DRV is for a relist. Please read the nom before putting your 2 cents.
From what I can see, Coookiemonster is just an SPA with 0 mainspace content contributions. The drafts they are moving will obviously be precisely moved to the right naming structure by any AfC reviewer while accepting and the categories they are adding are useless contributions done to game their edit count, making it look like they are an experienced editor. Close to 1500 useless edits from March 21st to March 28th, including the clear outcomes of AfD closures they made. I believe none are controversial apart from Justin Jin's closure. Going offline right after S Marshall suggested that he revert his close? Just a clever way to disrupt a particular AfD and hide it like a routine closure. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember searching this subject up and I’m pretty sure the Wikipedia article wasn’t in the first page of Google results, and if IIRC new articles at AfD automatically get a no index tag? My point is that this is a popular article. What I mean by rushing to delete is that new sources are appearing for this subject. Thanks for bringing up CookieMonster’s edits, and with Alalch E.'s text below I'm neutral.
For future reference, when a DR is created is it required to add a tag to the article itself? I wasn’t aware there even was a DR until a few days later. TLAtlak20:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Obvious and clear BADNAC. We'll probably get this AFD wrong anyway, but it should be an admin that evaluates it. One more relist may be best before a second close. Usedtobecool☎️10:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate. "Endorse BADNAC because X" comments are unnecessary unless X is something exceptional. A DRV such as this one takes approximately the same amount of resources to conduct regardless of it outcome, and it takes only a small-to-moderate amount of energy on top for an individual admin to reclose or relist (considering also that the things said in the deletion review can add some outside perspective and make it easier). For a modest added investment we probably get a significantly better final product, because an AfD that doesn't suffer from a perception that process wasn't followed correctly can be assumed to be significantly better. This should be completely routine.—Alalch E.11:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Alalch E. I'd go even further and say that clear cases of BADNAC should be instantly reverted, either in lieu of bringing them to DRV, or short-circuiting DRV for a speedy close. If the AfD outcome was in any way disputed, as evidenced by it being brought to DRV, there is nothing to be gained by endorsing the non-admin close over re-closing properly, and plenty to be gained by eliminating these pointless energy drains. Owen×☎11:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I am the person who originally created the article, as I am a student of Master Shi Xing Mi and work in media, and I also edited it with over 20 sources following the notice of deletion.
Master Shi Xing Mi has hundreds of international sources, from prestigious publications such as Forbes and NYP, to government institutions and large international corporations. He is the most quoted and published Shaolin Master globally, with 4 books published by the likes of Random House and Mondadori, as well as the Co-Founder of two international wellness and fitness companies with hundreds of employees.
Despite providing over 20 such sources in the Wikipedia article, as well as hundreds more being available to anyone with just a single Google search, a Wikipedia moderator deleted it citing "no independent sources". Without being sarcastic, I don't think Master Shi Xing Mi owns dozens of top international magazines and newspapers, global book editors, government institution and many other such sources. They are clearly impeccable independent sources.
The deletion is thus completely unfounded and arbitrary; furthermore, there are dozens of Wikipedia pages about living people who comparatively have a miniscule number of sources, yet are considered compliant. Oddly, Shi Xing Mi's own Master, Shi De Yang, has 1 (one) source which is his own website, yet it's considered acceptable. Shi Xing Mi, who by the way is mentioned in Shi De Yang's Wikipedia page, has hundreds of sources but is not acceptable.
Obvious Endorse. The DRV instructions should have pointed the appellant to REFUND_to_draftspace. Support draftification, but with no promise that this will lead to sufficient improvement for return to mainspace, but because draftspace is the right venue and forum to work through issues of sufficient sourcing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – Nothing wrong with the close. However I would support a draft to go through AfC, because of the conflict of interest and because the sourcing needs to be improved (the person writing this seems to use not usable sources like New York Post, TED, etc. TLAtlak15:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as there was a consensus to delete which can't come and didn't come from some arbitrary opinions but came from relevant critique of the sources in terms of their quality, irrespective of their quantity. No comment or opinion on undeletion to draft, which was not requested by the appellant.—Alalch E.17:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
AfD discussion focused on notability and ignored that the page is supported by 0 independent sources. Furthermore, significant contributions were made to the page by a since banned COI editor. Though sufficiently notable, the page should be deleted per WP:TNT in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOHANNVSVERVS (talk • contribs) This can be considered withdrawn by nominatorIOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Other than the appellant, who was the AfD's nom, views were unanimous to keep, and it was obviously closed as such. Yes, participants focused on the subject's notability, exactly as they should. Source independence was addressed in the AfD by SportingFlyer. I'd like to remind the appellant that per WP:NEXIST, notability is determined by the existence of sources, not by the state of sourcing in the article. Also, we don't delete an article just because a banned COI editor contributed to it. The WP:TNT essay is not a deletion policy. If you have trouble creating a new version of the article while the old one is in place, go edit the new version in draftspace or offline. I think the appellant is being disingenuous about the "starting over" part of WP:TNT, as they clearly have no intention of improving the article, and are only interested in removing it.Owen×☎11:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm allowed to reply here: I personally have no intention of recreating the page if it was deleted, but other editors would have the opportunity to do so. I considered trying to improve the article instead of requesting its deletion but I didn't have enough interest to do so. If this deletion request fails then I will find RS and I'll reduce the article, probably to a stub, with information only taken from whatever one or two RS I can find. Would that be the best way forward in your opinion? Also, I don't understand how an article can be allowed to exist with no reliable sources. or are the Yitzhak Reiter sources considered valid RS for this article even though they lack independence? Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe I've misunderstood WP:TNT and clearly I am rather ignorant of AfD policies. If this is an obvious keep then you can consider my nomination for review to be withdrawn. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Amended 11:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IOHANNVSVERVS:WP:TNT is very, very rarely used to completely delete a page. Usually it means the subject is notable, but the content on the page needs to be completely rewritten. I think it's close to the case here, so I wouldn't be afraid to cull anything that wasn't written neutrally. I'd close this as withdrawn as well, but I participated in the AfD. SportingFlyerT·C12:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mention culling anything that wasn't written neutrally, but doesn't everything that isn't sourced need to go? I plan on finding one or more RS and basically rewriting the article leaving it a stub. Is that the best way forward?
No worries; many here mistake WP:TNT for a deletion policy, when it actually is an essay about editorial preferences. I've stricken out my comment about your perceived intentions. Owen×☎21:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX, I appreciate that. It's totally understandable you would have gotten that impression.
I've overhauled the page. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Endorse - The discussion was quite clearly a keep with several noting the article needed significant improvement. -- Whpq (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The content is not contrary to policy. The claims about this living person made do not seem like contentious claims. There can always be a consensus to keep a page such as this one, and there was a consensus to keep this page.—Alalch E.00:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paczkowski continues to be very well known and a wildly important journalist. He's interviewed Apple CEO Tim Cook and broken all manner of news about Apple and other big tech companies.
Endorse The discussion was correctly closed, albeit could probably have been relisted - my first thought was relist but the AfD is five months old, so there's no point. However there are new sources to review. Unfortunately, none of the newly presented sources appear properly secondary to me. No issues if someone wants to try to create a new article in draft space using different sources to these. SportingFlyerT·C19:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the unanimous close of the AfD. There was no other way to close it, and we generally do not relist when views are unanimous and there are three or more valid participants. I'm still trying to parse what is "unsupported and inaccurate". The appellant, who joined WP three hours ago to file this malformed DRV, appears to be driven by something other than encyclopedic interest. With absolutely zero history of editing here, and a poor understanding of our notability guidelines, I think sending them to write a draft might be giving them false hope, and wasting their time and that of the AfC reviewer. That's not to say that a qualifying article about John Paczkowski couldn't be written, I just don't see the appellant, using the sources they cited, doing so. I don't like to WP:BITE newcomers, but when a newcomer's first edit on the project is to cast aspersions on AfD participants who dutifully did what we expect them to do, I tend to temper my expectations. Owen×☎20:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close. A good-faith appellant should be asking about submitting a draft, but, as per OwenX, this editor will waste their time and that of the reviewers if they submit a draft. An editor with moderate experience may submit a draft, or may create an article subject to AFD. We shouldn't be asking questions about the close. I can see that two of the references dumped appear to be non-independent. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as there was consensus to delete. AfDs showing less participation than desired, but are otherwise of normal quality in terms of arguments expressed, should not be reflexively relisted.—Alalch E.14:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I believe the administrator wrongfully considered that a consensus had been reached. Below are the reasons:
1. There were major edits after the first few opinions were put forward, which could nullify the reasons supporting a merge, redirect or draftification.
2. Some of the questions raised during the AfD discussion are yet to be answered, let alone reach a consensus.
3. The administrator used the words "seems" and "lean" in the explanation, which indicated that the current discussion could not reach a clear conclusion. So, further discussion might be needed. GoldWitness (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse well reasoned close. There was consensus that there should not be a standalone article. With no consensus on how the article should be handled (delete, merge, redirect), OwenX selected the option that allows for the most editorial flexibility moving forward. FrankAnchor02:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. After one relist with some, but not much, additional comment, it makes sense to "bite the bullet" and assess consensus from the discussion as it stands. I agree with Owen× that a rough consensus exists not have a separate article. Exactly where and what to merge are less clear, but nothing prevents continuing discussion on the appropriate article talk pages. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was clearly not a consensus to keep the article at the point of the close, it was actually a fairly well attended discussion. SportingFlyerT·C09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per others. It's normal that there are some unanswered questions and for AfDs not to have a completely clear outcome. Nothing is ever perfect. The standard is reasonableness.—Alalch E.15:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - It is often sufficient for the closer to find a rough consensus rather than going through additional relists to try to get a better consensus that might not be there. This was such a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to be a massive "endorse", so at first I thought it needless for me to pile on, but I see that there are three limbs to the nominator's argument and in a satisfactory DRV, all three should be answered here. The nominator deserves a full explanation. I'll attempt that as follows:1) Imagine if we did restart the AfD or reset the count after a major edit. What would happen then? Well, people who didn't want their article deleted could keep doing major rewrites, and they would. For that reason, we ask AfD participants not to evaluate the article as it currently is, but rather to decide whether there should be a separate article with this title. A "delete" or "merge" is understood to mean "no article with this title should exist". So the community will support OwenX on the first limb.2) Imagine if we didn't close a discussion until all the questions were answered. What would happen then? Well, people who didn't want their article deleted could keep asking questions, and they would. For that reason, we don't require AfD participants to answer questions. So the community will support OwenX on the second limb.3) Closes should be honest, truthful, and use natural language. Sometimes a discussion doesn't reach a slam dunk obvious conclusion but rather, the closer needs to use their judgement to evaluate what the community is saying. In such cases closers use more hesitant words: they say things like "seems" or "lean" or "tend" or "on balance". This is normal. We can't wait for crystal clear, slam dunk consensus to emerge because the sheer volume of work AfD has to do precludes that; each discussion only gets a certain amount of community attention. This was a judgement call and the wording rightly reflects that. So the community will support OwenX on the third limb.I hope this helps and suffices to fully answer your objections.—S MarshallT/C10:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The close was appropriate. I don't even know what the unanswered questions from the discussion were or why they needed to be answered before the AfD was closed. If editors still believe we need a separate article titled Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War, they can work on it in draftspace until it is an improvement over the corresponding section of Chinese Civil War. --Metropolitan90(talk)15:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading up on the 2024 Indian general election and going through the Wikipedia maze of articles when I discovered that Annamalai does not have an article on Wikipedia. What was even more puzzling to me was that some other unknown Annamalai had a page, but the known Annamalai didn't have one. So I decided to investigate and tried to go through the entire history of the K. Annamalai page and all the disputes and discussions about the notability of the guy who is currently detailed, versus the guy who is not. I completely understand how the arguments brought forth by other Wikipedia editors could seem misleading to pretty much anyone who isn't from Tamil Nadu. As someone with a hopeful half-decent understanding of Wikipedia and its guidelines, and as someone from Tamil Nadu, I will attempt to put down my arguments to why the page K. Annamalai is not deserved by the subject of it, but instead is deserved by the other guy.
In the context of Tamil Nadu politics, there are two people known by the same name, K. Annamalai. The obvious differentiating factor betweem the two is the party that each Annamalai belongs to. One belongs to the AIADMK party while the other belongs to the BJP. So let me use acronyms to refer to each Annamalai; AKA - AIADMK K. Annamalai and BKA - BJP K. Annamalai. Currently, the page K. Annamalai is being used to represent AKA, but I believe it should be used to represent BKA. I will first attempt to debunk the notability of AKA and then attempt to prove the notability of BKA.
Taking a look at WP:POLITICIAN, it does says that "Politicians and judges who have held state/province–wide office" are notable. However it also says that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". As someone from Tamil Nadu, it is very obvious to me that AKA falls under the latter criterion. But if I have to attempt to prove this to someone on the web who isn't from Tamil Nadu, the argument I have is that I cannot find a single news article written on AKA on the entire web. I'm not even sure if it's possible to find news articles on AKA because even searching for "AIADMK K. Annamalai" on the web only yields results about BKA. AKA is someone who held office more than 20 years back, but is completely irrelevant now because not only has no one heard of him in a long time, but even if anyone wants to read and find out about him, there is absolutely no way to. I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong if anyone can bring up the link to even a single news article written about AKA.
Now onto BKA. Before I attempt to prove BKA's notability, I need to state that I've gone through the history of the numerous attempts by a lot of editors to create the article on BKA. And after going through them, I will unequivocally acknowledge that all of the articles written previously were in almost complete violation of Wikipedia's basic guidelines. It appears there are 3 times that articles on BKA have been deleted on consensus after discussion
3 - April 2023 - Reason - Not notable and Promotional
I agree with the consensus reached for all 3 deletions for those times. But BKA did start becoming notable at a certain point. But it's not easy for me to clearly define when exactly he became notable. However I certainly believe that BKA now falls under the criterion of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" under WP:POLITICIAN as of today, and certainly deserves the page K. Annamalai more than AKA.
Comment: thank you for the thorough and clear exposition, Nirinsanity. I can make a few observations here:
You being from Tamil Nadu is irrelevant to our case, and comes across as an argument from authority. If the information is only available to people in Tamil Nadu, then it is not independently verifiable, and we can not use it here.
We don't have to delete an article on one K. Annamalai to make room for an article about another K. Annamalai. We have over one hundred articles about different people named David Smith. If both K. Annamalai people are notable, we'll have an article about each one, under separate titles; see next point.
If someone reaches the page about K. Annamalai (AIADMK politician) expecting to find an article about K. Annamalai (BJP politician), the first sentence in the article will clear their confusion. This will not break the "integrity of Wikipedia". We do not delete articles about notable topics just to avoid the possibility of such confusion. However, if we decide that both people are notable, we will add a "hatnote" that will read something like, "This article is about the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam politician. For the one about the Bharatiya Janata Party member of the same name, see K. Annamalai (BJP politician)." We do this type of thing here all the time. Even when it comes to Tamil Nadu politics, I'm sure there can be more than one K. Annamalai.
I find it unlikely that after years of non-notability lasting until at least April 2023, BKA has suddenly attained notability, but it is certainly possible. If that's the case, I suggest we take another look at Draft:K. Annamalai (BJP politician), and see if the rejection was due to a confusion between the two people. Do all the sources there relate to BKA and not to AKA? Pinging @DoubleGrazing: to go over this with you. Again, the sources you add to that draft can be in Tamil, English, or any other language, but they must be accessible to users outside Tamil Nadu. If accepted, the article will be moved from Draft to main space, and the hatnote I described above will be added to both articles to prevent confusion.
Endorse keeping AKA (the nominator does not provide any argument for why the deletion outcome for BKA should be overturned, so I assume that will come in a future DRV). As a member of an Indian state legislature, AKA passes WP:NPOL#1, full-stop (Politicians [...] who have held [...] state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels). Curbon7 (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7 It doesn't matter to me whether BKA has an article or not, so let us even ignore BKA. If I have to prove my argument that AKA is not notable as per "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability'" under WP:NPOL, please tell me, how can I go about it? Because that is the argument I'm trying to make here. AKA is not notable. I can't even find sufficient proof of his existence except for the two non-news references that are currently there on K. Annamalai. Nirinsanity (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer As I enquired in another reply, if I want to prove my argument that AKA is not notable as per "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability'" under WP:NPOL, please tell me, how could I go about it? Because that is the argument I'm trying to make here. AKA is not notable. I can't even find sufficient proof of his existence except for the two non-news references that are currently there on K. Annamalai. Nirinsanity (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nirinsanity: If you held state office for five years, there will have been something written about you. If you're an unelected candidate, you have to be "otherwise notable." I do not know Tamil, I had to use Google Translate, but perhaps [3] is one of the articles you're looking for? SportingFlyerT·C10:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the content from that source, as well as another I found (the assembly's Who's Who for that session [4]), which buff the article out to be more than just election stats, now definitely surpassing WP:NOPAGE. Curbon7 (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7 @SportingFlyer Alright frankly I'm amazed at how you two found these sources, because I couldn't find anything on him. I'd be really grateful if you can enlighten me on what is the method you generally follow to find references on a subject, especially considering that these citations are in a language that you don't even know. I now stand conflicted on one of my original arguments, that AKA is not notable.
However, my second argument that BKA is notable per WP:NPOL#2 - "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." - is still valid, and I will attempt to bring into existence the article on him. The Draft:K. Annamalai (BJP politician) is quite visibly in a tragic state right now. I will see if I can give it some NPOV treatment and make it read like an actual Wikipedia article. Nirinsanity (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AKA politician has an article in Tamil, so I translated that article, and then figured out the pattern which matched his name and the pattern which matched the constituency and then searched for his name and the name of his constituency in Tamil. First search engine gave me nothing, second search engine found the article on him. SportingFlyerT·C19:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and topic-ban appellant under WP:NOTHERE. I originally assumed good faith in my attempt to help the appellant, but their last comment here clearly shows they are here for political reasons, not encyclopedic ones. Listing at WP:DEEPER may also be a good idea. Owen×☎11:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX I've been here as an editor on Wikipedia for more than 14 years now. Please trust me when I say that the sanctity and integrity of Wikipedia matters more to me than anything else. I'd rather not state this on the record, but if it makes a difference, I'm politically as far away from BKA's ideology as I could be. I hope that clarifies that I'm not here for political reasons. Nirinsanity (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse & speedy close I'm assuming it's this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Annamalai we're discussing here? That closed as unanimous keep, entirely appropriately as the subject passes WP:NPOL unequivocally. This review motion seems to be based on the incorrect interpretation of NPOL, mistakenly equating state-level legislators as 'local politicians', and on the equally incorrect notion that there can only be one K. Annamalai article in Wikipedia. I see no reason to overturn the close. (And to add on a personal note, I really wish this seemingly never-ending Annamalai malarkey would end. I've already had to pursue the matter at ANI, SPI, and possibly elsewhere, and now can add DRV to the list. Starting to lose the will to live here...) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX Thank you for your points. I originally disagreed with a few of your points, but after discussing with the other editors in this thread, I now completely agree with all of your points. I will see if I can attempt to make the current Draft:K. Annamalai (BJP politician) more neutral and read like an actual Wikipedia article. Nirinsanity (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endose, speedy close, list at DEEPER: as far as I can tell, the problem here isn't the aubject of the current article. Confusion concerns have been addressed above, there's no reason to delete the current article. The subject of the draft article has seen numerous postings here and there's already instruction that it has to recieve delrev for approval: so let's require that a substantially new draft that satisfies GNG be brought (without mentioning the current article or confusion concerns) and allow all future review requests that don't meet that threshold be speedied here, such that we don't continue to disrupt the mainspace article as it stands. microbiologyMarcus[petri dish·growths]14:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This is the latest attempt of politically-motivated POV pushing to remove an article about a former state legislator purely to replace it with an article about a politician from another party of the same name. A blatant abuse of process and in fact an abuse of Wikipedia. AusLondonder (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder If you really considered yourself a believer in the principles of Wikipedia, you would've assumed WP:GOODFAITH. I don't how some of you just assumed that I'm politically motivated. I followed due process while opening this deletion for review. I haven't made a single edit to any of the Annamalai articles, draft or mainspace, in the 14 years that I've been an editor here. And I even changed my mind about this very review when the other editors here put forth their arguments. Nirinsanity (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding to your proposal. You said "I will attempt to put down my arguments to why the page K. Annamalai is not deserved by the subject of it, but instead is deserved by the other guy." You also said "At the very least, the current page on AKA as it stands right now must be deleted to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia" - you were literally advocating for overturning a months-old AfD closed as unanimous keep to delete an article about a state legislator so the page could be given to someone from another side of politics. It might not be your intention, but any reasonable person would see that as politically-motivated. AusLondonder (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This is complicated. The article is about the media coverage of the supposed disappearance of a member of the British royal family, who later reappeared and announced she had cancer. The first AfD, contested here, was closed as "keep". During this DRV, someone started a second AfD at 19:16, 22 March 2024, which was procedurally closed at 23:28, 22 March 2024 with reference to this ongoing review. That second AfD's closure is now also contested here.
In this DRV, a majority of editors endorse the first AfD's "keep" closure. A minority argue for reopening the second AfD because they believe that events subsequent to the media frenzy caused by the "disappearance" - i.e., the announcement of the cancer diagnosis - should be considered in Wikipedia's treatment of the topic in the light of WP:BLP.
Whether that is so is for the editorial process to determine. As DRV closer, I can only conclude that there is no consensus to relist either the first or the second AfD, and so the closures of both discussions remain in force.
While it is now technically possible to open a third AfD, my personal recommendation is to first try to use the article talk page to find editorial consensus for any adjustments to the title or scope of the article, including possibly a merger, that people may consider appropriate. The issues discussed here are fundamentally a matter of editorial judgment, to which the binary nature of the deletion process may not be optimally suited. Sandstein 20:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Just to clarify I'm seeking to relist the deletion discussion so that we can give proper weight to the BLP concerns that permeate this article. Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a bit confused about all of this. Firstly, I have only read that there are general BLP concerns on the article, what specifically are the BLP concerns? And secondly, why do the BLP concerns need to be under a deletion review, and not the articles talk page? TheSpacebook (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're treading very dangerous ground with WP:BLP by creating a content fork to list what amounts to a bunch of unsubstantiated celebrity gossip. WP:NOTGOSSIP is relevant. I think the closure focused too much on the number of !votes and the presence of sources that might be reliable and that, in this case, these BLP concerns should have been weighed more in the closure. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moon landing conspiracy theories are a bunch of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, but they are notable, which makes the topic encyclopedic. The Where is Kate? article isn't about the location of the Princess. It is about those unsubstantiated celebrity rumours flying around during the past few weeks. This gossip has received enough significant coverage to make the topic notable. WP:NOTGOSSIP tells us that Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography (emphasis mine). This one, however, warrants inclusion. Even gossip, if significantly covered, can achieve notability. Owen×☎17:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closing admin provided a detailed explanation for the close, which seems to correctly reflect consensus. If the participants in that AfD did not give sufficient weight to WP:BLP concerns, that is not something the closer should overrule with a supervote. Personally, I do not see any clear BLP violation here. The article is thoroughly sourced, and maintains a neutral tone about the subject, correctly attributing rumours to the RS that quoted them, as required by our policy. Either way, we're not here to relitigate the case, only to determine if the close reflected participants' consensus, which it did. Owen×☎16:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original closing decision. Uses RS throughout. The specific BLP concerns have not been made clear. The conspiracy theories/rumours are clearly sectioned off and uses RS to show they are unsubstantiated. This is not just ‘internet or tabloid gossip’ as highly reputable international sources have discussed it and the impact of it. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per OwenX, the closer weighed the consensus correctly, and there were no real BLP violations that hadn't been already dealt with (tabloids, for instance, had long been removed). ——Serial Number 5412917:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so Kate Middleton's temporarily less visible after abdominal surgery and the media have done their collective nuts about it. In my view there are two things to review here. First is the decision not to delete our article about it, which I endorse in reluctant recognition of the consensus, and the second is the bizarre decision to call that article "Where is Kate?", about which I what the actual heck are we thinking?—S MarshallT/C17:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the articles title, the first 2 cites are multi-cites which are reliable sources which use the term. Also, there is a discussion on the talk page about it. I don’t understand why the articles title should be discussed in a deletion review. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With 19 different redirects to the article, I daresay the specific title chosen for the page is more a matter of stylistic preference than of any practical encyclopedic importance. Owen×☎17:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some redirects redirect to the photograph, some are alternative punctuation and some I’m confused by (for example Health and appearance of Catherine, Princess of Wales). Some label it as a scandal, which can be disputed. Some titles label it a ‘controversy’, which can also be disputed as the main controversial thing is the manipulated photograph, with her absence being commented on, but still uncontroversial. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The title might not be great but the content it self is encyclopedic and respectful. Whilst it makes reference to the tabloid fodder (as most wiki articles about conspiracy theories do) it doesn't treat them as fact.
That being said, I think the article should have some parts rewritten to focus more on debunking the conspiracy theories and making reference to the harm uncontrolled media speculation does. Slamforeman (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above. (I was a merge !voter) The supposed grounds for the review are very strange - i don't see any "up/down count". The vague hand-waving around BLP and NOTGOSSIP is equally strange, particularly given the very good description of how NOTNEWS was treated. I thought it was actually a careful and thoughtful closing (and I would have preferred a different outcome). DeCausa (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Excellent closing statement, no evidence that a relist would move the needle. BLP concerns are not a bigger concern than recentism, because we're dealing with a very public figure and the entire brouhaha is about her trying to be less public and the public, through their designated journalistic lackeys, not having any of it. Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either endorse or overturn to no consensus (noting both have the same end result for practical purposes). Strong policy-based arguments were made to keep the article, and I agree with OwenX that any BLP concerns were unfounded. Delete/merge voters made a valid claim regarding whether this has/will have a lasting impact but there clearly was not consensus to not keep the article. Due to the high attendance at the AFD, I do not think a relist would impact the discussion. Therefore I oppose relisting. FrankAnchor19:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to endorse keep closure of first AFD for reasons I stated above and procedural close this DRV as new information has come to light possibly affecting whether this article should be kept. The best place for that discussion is a new (3rd) AFD, not continued discussion here. FrankAnchor14:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that I very strongly oppose relisting the 2nd AFD as it turned into a trainwreck of discussions involving the article itself and proposed procedural closes due to the in-process DRV. The much better option is to get all of the old discussions (including this one) behind us and start fresh with a BRAND NEW deletion discussion. FrankAnchor02:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and close as no consensus, relist, or resend to AfD: I created the article, nominated it for AfD, and eventually !voted Keep:
As the closing comment to the AfD article suggests, a thorny issue here is that there isn't really disagreement (on the whole) about the article's coverage in reliable sources, though there has been some disagreement about whether those sources are secondary. Moreover, the disagreement concerns whether this article should be on Wikipedia at all – that is, the scope of the project, and WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTGOSSIP.
Tellingly, this deletion review results from a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kate Middleton, in which responding editors with particular interest in BLP policy feel overwhelmingly that the article doesn't conform with said policy, and that this was overlooked or not clearly articulated in the AfD discussion, in which there were no !votes or comments that directly cited WP:BLP outside my nomination statement, except the rather memorable Delete !vote that this [is a] grotesque BLP-violating festival of WP:NOTNEWS tabloid indulgence. In hindsight, I would have liked to inform the noticeboard of the article and topic from the outset, and I also don't know whether I would have voted differently had the BLP argument (separate from NOTNEWS) been better articulated.
While I thought the nomination statement was graciously well-worded and clearly the product of much reflection, I was also somewhat surprised that the AfD closed as Keep rather than No Consensus, and the closing sentences, in particular, seemed off to me: the keep editors, collectively acknowledged NOTNEWS, but differed in their view of whether the amount and duration of coverage warranted an exception. I felt that the position that reached consensus in this discussion is that it did.
Finally, and importantly, I think the AfD did have a thread of evolving discussion, so a relist might have helped to achieve consensus. The other thing is that this is an evolving news story, and editors contributing at the start of the discussion would have had a different perspective than those towards the end. The discussion at the BLP noticeboard, and a bold bid from the DRV nominator to redirect the article two days after the AfD close, finally show that even if the AfD did reach consensus, this isn't a consensus that is being respected. We have comments on the noticeboard like:
It's one of those articles that makes you think Wikipedia might not be a good idea after all
the standalone article is a mockery of WP' BLP concerns, which pretty much override everything
This entire side article seems like a major BLP violation ... The worst kind of gossip. The people arguing to keep it seem like gossip mongers themselves, and
that is one of the worst articles I've ever seen and should have been nuked without prejudice. The AfD is a disgrace.
With all this in mind, I recommend overturning the closure and closing as no consensus, relisting, or resending to AfD. I appreciate there isn't much in WP:DRVPURPOSE to support this perspective, but given the dissatisfaction that has resulted from the closure and the response of the noticeboard, coupled with the uniqueness of the topic and the fact that the discussion has centred so much around Wikipedia's purpose rather than the individual topic, I wave my hands with the magic dust that is WP:IAR. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also partially concerned that the BLP noticeboard prompted an editor to amendWP:NOTNEWSto tamp down on this sort of embarrassment in future (source). Though the amendment is minor and I don't think it would have changed anyone's !votes, it's not in a collaborative spirit for a group of editors to feel that their concerns were not articulated in an AfD on a topic receiving considerable news coverage, then amend the policy that formed the basis of the discussion so that future AfDs might come closer to their desired result. It seems like the best possible result out of this situation is to allow said group of editors to express their concerns at an AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skimming that discussion and not seeing a whole lot of sound policy reasoning articulated there. I'm seeing a whole lot of emotional reasoning attempting to use policy to achieve a desired result, combined with some really bad takes: newspapers aren't secondary sources? Seriously? Regardless, I wouldn't let other peoples' overreactions either goad or guilt you into doing anything; the community spoke pretty cogently in the AfD actually. Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The epitome of that is one of the (currently) latter posts which says "I don't think there's a point in the Deletion Review, since clearly the close with that AfD was really no other way to go with how the discussion itself played out. No consensus at worst. But the problem is that all the editors who voted Keep in said discussion, especially with their extremely poor reasoning, should be ashamed of themselves."[5]DeCausa (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
newspapers aren't secondary sources? Seriously? - Take a look at WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Also per WP:PRIMARY (the policy): For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. See also note d of WP:PRIMARY. Or see: Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources.[1]: 69 . Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's literally about breaking news or, at least, immediate news reporting. Actually, most news media is a mixture of primary and secondary even within the same article. For the type of sourcing that's in this article it's almost all secondary. DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is about news reporting, yes. And the distinction between primary and secondary sources is usually far muddier than people might wish. But I was merely responding to the blanket "newspapers aren't secondary sources?". No, very often they are not. Or rather the articles aren't. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, however, cut short my quote from Donnelly & Norton. It should be: Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources. They are considered to be inferior to documents of record because they are held to contain various degrees of interpretation, subjectivity and bias. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Very often" is the problem. I think editors making broad statements about newspapers being primary sources is what's inappropriate. It's actually a narrow circumstance when that's the case. DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Narrow" is rather debatable. But this is DRV, and I'm sidetracking. I'll happily discuss how narrow reporting of current events is in a newspaper on my talk page or yours. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Donnelly, Mark P.; Norton, Claire (2021). Doing history (2nd ed.). London New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN9781138301559.
Overturn, endorse or Close as moot under WP:SNOW per my later comment (!vote change). The most important thing is that this article should be sent back to AfD, and all roads (endorse, overturn, close as moot) seem to be leading there. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 19:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I thought that was a very well-reasoned close, and would have come to a similar conclusion myself. I'm actually surprised those advocating deletion didn't make stronger arguments, considering I recognised a few of those names - and let me be clear, I'm not saying those arguments were invalid, just that they did not really counteract the keep !arguments in the way I might have expected that would have been needed in order to close this against consensus. SportingFlyerT·C23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and close as no consensus The opposing arguments were based on WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:BLP, all of which are policies. An article with running commentary on every move a living person makes is a violation of WP:BLP. That alone was enough to override most of the arguments put forward by the group who was in favor of keeping the page. I don't see any point in deleting the article at this juncture, since I'm pretty sure some of the users involved would then start adding all that questionable content to the main page; additionally, I do not see a new AfD going anywhere as long as there's hysteria in the media about her whereabouts. However, closing that discussion as 'no consensus' would be an acknowledgment of the fact that the "delete" votes were based on our policies. Keivan.fTalk01:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-open the AfD Given her announcement that she has been diagnosed with cancer, there are multiple people on the article's talk page that find the whole thing to be insensitive or unnecessary. Even the article's major contributor is asking for policy-based input. It's better to have a discussion now; this is clearly a WP:BLP issue. Keivan.fTalk18:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: while there were vote counters present at the AfD (which aren't supposed to happen but this is what occurs for a popular AfD) the closer did an excellent job at comparing the arguments made on both sides and compared the strength and reasoning of both arguments in making their decision. A relist won't affect that, and no suitable arguments for BLP concerns where made (either there or here for that matter). Specific concerns can be challenged on the page itself or brought up on the article's talk page. microbiologyMarcus[petri dish·growths]12:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-list given that the reason for her not being there has now been released [6], I believe this AFD needs more input about the BLP concerns, particularly around all the incorrect speculation. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-list per Joseph2302. The situation has completely changed now, though I'm not sure we should ever have been asking the question here. StAnselm (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. New AfD overtakes. This is moot. The new AfD is not speedily closable. It is new, but it is well underway. The suggested alternative of closing the AfD and directing interested editors to this deletion review would be an imperious action that would lead to unnecessary conflict and confusion, and open the door to various grievances. There are no such problems when a DRV is closed: The editors who frequent this venue can see the bigger picture. The editors pouring in to comment in the AfD can not see the bigger picture. The excess energy that exists now can not be contained by procedural arguments. It's more effective and efficient to let everyone share their thoughts based on the new information in the new AfD than to discuss how and why the AfD was procedurally closed and on what basis. And if the AfD is not closed, there is no basis for this DRV to continue. I thank the closer of the AfD that was reviewed here for his close.—Alalch E.21:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The reason for opening the review just reads like a re-litigation of arguments brought forth during the AfD. The closing statement was very thoughtful and had a very logical and policy-based reasoning. Also seems like WP:FORUMSHOPPING from the user who requested the review to open a DRV and then open a second AfD nomination while their current DRV is still open. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 21:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC) My bad, I misread who opened the DRV. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls?21:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make a declaratory endorsement of Xymmax's respectable close is understandable, but it doesn't do anyhting vis-a-vis the encyclopedia. It's just declaratory. We've got major mootness going on. There's a new AfD, and the new AfD will decide whether to keep, delete or employ an ATD. —Alalch E.21:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally close second AfD until this DRV is concluded, per Jclemens. This second AfD comes across as vexatious litigation, especially seeing the persistent WP:BLUDGEONing going on there. If the new AfD isn't closed, it is more than likely to end up in DRV again, based on the impassioned responses there. Would we then allow a third AfD to usurp the second DRV? This should end here on 28 March, as per our established process. Owen×☎21:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can close the second AfD right away citing the second bullet of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Process interaction. We have a literal policy-level norm against the second AfD that is now ongoing. But it should not be done. We have a policy suggesting that it should, but common sense suggests the opposite. —Alalch E.22:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As we can see here, common sense can differ greatly even between experienced editors. The issue is disputed enough that I'd rather see consensus appear than act unilaterally. But if the current brouhaha is any indication, this second AfD will not definitively decide anything, as it will be instantly contested in DRV, again. Owen×☎22:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless DRV The close was proper, because there was no other way to close that original AfD. It's just that the editors involved in that AfD were incredibly shameful and blatant ignorers of WP:BLP and WP:NOT (particular WP:GOSSIP) policy by trying to inappropriately use GNG as a bludgeon to ignore BLP violating articles that have nothing to do with notability. That policy-violating stance was made very clear in the second AfD that was opened and the consensus that was very clearly forming there on the article needing to be deleted. So, again, this DRV is a waste of time. The original close was right, it was the editors involved in the discussion that were wrong and failed at following long-standing Wikipedia policy. A shame to all of them and their capability as Wikipedia editors. SilverserenC23:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And a new one should be started the moment this DRV is over. It seems quite clear from what was procedurally closed that the broader Wikipedia community has a much changed opinion on the article than the original smaller group that was actively ignoring policy. SilverserenC23:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read the thread to make relevant responses. I replied to this statement: "the broader Wikipedia community has a much changed opinion on the article than the original smaller group". I was obviously pointing out the error in the statement that it was a "much smaller group". Your reply was a non-sequitur. DeCausa (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wish that Liz had not closed the second AfD. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and procedural issues should be weighed against a vibrant, ongoing, and useful discussion. This DRV is *not* the same thing - as Silverseren says, the close was clearly correct for that discussion and has thus been roundly endorsed. But the second AfD was opened for good reason - because a massive new piece of information has recontextualized the entire existence of the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, start over I agree that it's bad keep arguments rather than a bad close, and given that the AfD ran before today's announcement, a new deletion discussion should commence. Preferably after everyone involved reads WP:BLPGOSSIP. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu A new deletion discussion had commenced. An AfD ran not before, but after yesterday's announcement. It was not the AfD that is reviewed in this deletion review but a second AfD, started yesterday. That new deletion discussion was closed. I don't think that you are aware of this. You probably only know about this deletion review and about the first AfD, judging by your comments. —Alalch E.06:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (not sure of the meaning of these close and endorse comments are --sorry, I'm just used to keep, merge, and delete) As said on the previous discussion, it evolved into a well-sourced article raising issues and about a topic that got a lot of news coverage. There's too much work in it to just delete the lot. At worst, merge it to the KM article. BalletForCattle (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, perhaps speedily, and reopen discussion at AfD or elsewhere about moving and/or rewriting the article. I see a clear consensus above, with which I agree, that the close was a correct summary of the discussion. Though some feel the discussion, while voluminous, was problematic itself. On the other hand, new information has changed the context of the article greatly in the last 24 hours and it makes no sense to wait a full seven days here before we move on to the inevitable next stage in this hullabaloo. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second comment Can we just endorse the result of the first AfD and reopen the second AfD that was started after the announcement of her cancer diagnosis? I cannot believe we are stuck with a deletion review that's not going to change any outcomes anyway. There were multiple users who argued for the article's deletion in the second AfD and their voices were suppressed by cack handedly closing the discussion because of this ongoing review. Keivan.fTalk04:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The second AFD was a hot mess and I think it is chaotic to launch a new AFD while the previous AFD is being debated. After this DRV is closed, which can happen early, you know, depending on its outcome, the second AFD can be reopened or, even better, a fresh discussion launched. But it was disruptive to have multiple open discussions on the same article happening in different places. This is not bureaucracy, it's just having an order and process to decision-making and not letting emotion override policy. LizRead!Talk!04:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. We're often called upon to decide between bold action and policy. In this case, the two happened to coincide. You did what had to be done. Owen×☎08:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, Liz - I agree that it was unfortunate to have two discussions open simultaneously on the same article. To me, the clearer path would have been to close the DRV, since there was a reasonably clear consensus here, and allow the second AfD to move forward, but there's obviously room for reasonable disagreement. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the second AfD was indeed a hot mess, given how this deletion review has played out and is continuing to play out, I can't see any way this story will continue except through a third AfD. You were right to close the second AfD, Liz, and with the passage of time, at least any third AfD will have a better chance of not letting emotion override policy. Nevertheless, unless WP:RENOM is enforced, it does feel somewhat like we're waiting more days – whether by bureaucracy or order and process – for a fresh AfD, at which point all discussion here will be rendered moot anyway, all the while a substantial number of editors believe an article continues to exist with BLP violations that were not mentioned in the first AfD and have not been addressed by subsequent edits. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 19:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close and endorse close of second AfD It was frankly disruptive behaviour and forum shopping to open a second AfD while this deletion review discussion was ongoing. The close of the original AfD correctly assessed consensus. Raising BLP is a red herring. Our BLP policies are designed to prevent unsourced content about living people. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. AusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess we'll all wait til 28th for this deletion review to be over and then start the third AfD that the community clearly wants and is clearly appropriate in the circumstances. I wish that we Wikipedians could adapt to change at a more reasonable speed than this.—S MarshallT/C09:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. I was on the delete side of the original AfD and I maintain that view, but my personal opinion is not what matters here. What matters is that the closer's assessment of consensus was valid. Also endorse close of second AfD: I fail to see how the announcement of her cancer diagnosis affects the article's notability. The consensus was that discussion of speculation and photo editing met our notability requirements yesterday, and notability is not temporary. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on all of you who have tried to exert your own hotsy-totsy importance over the Princess of Wales by abusing Wikipedia's frequency-notability policy to create and argue for the preservation of a horrific article! The article must be deleted if you all have a single bone of decency and propriety in your bodies. With the article in question, English Wikedia descended to the level of the tackiest, sleaziest, most deplorable and digusting tabloid press. Shame on you who did that! One short paragraph about her illness in our article on the princess must now suffice. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! That shameful and nonsensical crackpottery will be excluded from the relevant article, and all articles if I may say. Will be glad to see you in the forefront of such efforts. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can we snow-close as Endorse? There is only one outstanding Overturn !vote, my own, and also noting Relist !votes, most contributors, myself included, are eager to play out a third AfD in light of the diagnosis announcement and the WP:BLP concerns not expressed in the first AfD. At this point, this DRV feels like an unnecessary bureaucratic hold-up, whether or not the procedural close of the second AfD was correct. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close this review as moot due to being overtaken by external events. At this point, it doesn't matter much whether the prior deletion discussion(s) were closed appropriately or not. The information available about the topic has changed substantially, and we should be discussing what to do in light of the subsequent events, not whether Wikipedia's consensus assessment process was conducted well or not in the past. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn That there was vote counting in the close is explicit, with discussion of "majority" and "plurality", and the summing up at the end was that the there was a consensus in the majority about NOTNEWS. But in actual NOT-vote counting, we are not concerned with a consensus among the majority, we are concerned about a consensus among all participants, and that there was no consensus on RECENTISM and the intersection with BLP is at least defensible given the discussion, while this vote counting close is not. (Also, reread the comment above by the article creator.)
Moveover, the article was based on the premise of a mystery concerning a putative missing person ("Where is Kate?"), which at least, implies the potential for criminality. The encyclopedia's suggestion of a missing person highly implicates BLP, which was given short shrift by the closer.
Now, of course, as is usual in the midst of something, new information has come to light, suggesting nothing nefarious is going on, but rather a personal, familial, potential tragedy, and private medical treatment. Thus, there is good reason now to go back and possibly TNT the present article, and treat the disparate matters not as a COATRACK (the news treatment of manipulated photos in the age of AI fears, misinformation fears, and social media pressure may be something, but it is not in sum a personal medical or missing person mystery - for example, our own publication likely uses manipulated - perhaps once thought innocuous - images throughout) but instead treat the various matters with the distance, weight, and explanatory power we as an encyclopedia are required to aim for, especially when BLP and RECENTISM is implicated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It smacks of no such thing and how can you possibly say that when yesterday it became known that the underlying reason for the media circus is that she has cancer, which wasn't known at the time of the first AfD. It is this new fact which caused editors on all sides of the AfD to see the article in a new light, and for many of them to want the content about this updated and for our coverage of this topic seriously reworked because they came to think that the article isn't encyclopedically valid anymore in terms of various policies that are being mentioned, including the one about due weight, another one about living persons et cetera. Firstly, the article was out of date the moment the news broke, and even when the second, now-closed AfD, was started, and BLPs must not be out of date when it comes to sensitive items. To read something nefarious into a desire to reach a consensus on what to do with the article under these circumstances makes for an inappropriate comment. —Alalch E.20:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday's announcement changed nothing. It adds to the information and new RS commentary will be added to the article per DUE weight, but just because she announces her cancer that doesn't magically erase the prior RS. Out of date is a reason for incorporating new info, not deleting validly sourced older information. Finally, my essay WP:CRYBLP is proven necessary, unfortunately, once again, as many otherwise reasonable editors seem to have forgotten what BLP actually says and instead invoke "BLP violation" as a cryptoshibboleth for "something that might hurt someone's feelings" when the policy is very much not that at all. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was describing what caused editors to see the article in a new light and to want to keep the discussion going in order to explain how it is inappropriate to read into something nefarious as in "smacks of seeking a supervote to undo a consensus". —Alalch E.21:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please give me quotes from the article which are BLP violations/speculation, and I can get it sorted. From what I see, there’s 1 section that is clearly labelled ‘unsubstantiated conspiracy theories’ and the rest is balanced, neutral commentary. TheSpacebook (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The overall point, I think, is that the article itself, as a standalone article, goes against the spirit of WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPGOSSIP. I appreciate now that this why there has been so much handwaving on BLP: no particular part of the policy addresses it, but it should fall foul, and hence the article should be resent to AfD and deleted as quickly as possible, but it does require (in my view) circumventing typical deletion rationales and treating this is an edge case that should later be reflected in clearer policy to prevent similar articles in the future. *whispers* On this, there are lots of relevant comments and !arguments off-wiki which really should have been brought on-wiki so much sooner, and would have averted a lot of this fiasco had they been expressed.IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 19:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that one of those conspiracy theory articles was taken to AfD and closed as no consensus, while the other is relatively new (it didn't even have WikiProjects attached). In my view, the best possible case for Where is Kate's retention is to focus not on Catherine's absence, nor the conspiracy theories, but the online (media) frenzy, which as another editor said, also takes the focus away from the princess. This might come across as an unhelpful content dispute, but yesterday's extensive article reorganisation and trimming you reverted was meant to go some way to help this by trimming many of the excessive details about Catherine, like the fact that the Waleses were planning trips to Latvia or Italy, that Catherine was wearing sunglasses in the paparazzi photograph, or the insignificant sideshow of the Big Brother appearance, and removing contentious commentary statements like Since the death of Queen Elizabeth II, support for the monarchy reached a record low (the source of which has no relation to the controversy). These kinds of details and commentary are against the spirit of WP:BLP, and unless the article changes direction, I don't think it should survive a third AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just wonder if past articles about living people's conpiracies like Clinton body count conspiracy theory and Birtherism should have received as strict scrutiny as Kate's issue here. (In fact the Clintons' conspiracy page already survived two AfDs yet neither of them culminated in an intense debate; Obama's survived three AfDs, but each ended with an overwhelming majority of Keep/Endorse votes.) If gossips around the Clintons and Obama deserve more toleration simply based on their status as politicians, then I fail to see why Kate, also undertaking public services, may receive much more protection. Moreover it should be determined to what extent the living people's privacy should receive more protection than those deceased, i.e. for what different reasons from BLP should we treat articles like Lady Di or JFK's conspiracies with heightened scrutiny. Jason211pacem (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I was a single purpose account for the purpose of editing Kate Middleton's page, I would probably have a bit more subtle tact in how I post in this discussion. Parabolist (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
●At the time of her operation in January, Kate asked for privacy.
●During her video update yesterday (1m 50s) she repeated her plea for privacy.
●Yesterday the UK prime minister has accused social media of wild speculation and emphasised Kate has a right to privacy during recovery.
●Yesterday, the US President's press secretary at the outset, briefed the press that they would be respecting Kate's privacy.
● Morally, Wikipedia should delete, "Where is Kate" and find a delete editor who is willing to abide by the subjects privacy request. Jaymailsays (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might have noticed you are the only one to mark their post "Delete". This is about whether the closing of the AfD conformed with what's expected of an AfD closing, not whether the article should be kept or deleted. Likely, there will be a new AfD on that. DeCausa (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with your sentiment that Catherine has asked for privacy, and we should respect that. However, the mainstream media and social media didn’t comply with her request, and we can’t WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Her own uncle went on one of the most watched television shows in the UK and said “if it’s announced, I’ll tell you my opinion on it” which set the media and social media ablaze with conspiracies of what he was talking about. I said in the 2nd AfD that we should restructure the article to only focus on the media circus that happened, as the back-to-back front page coverage was no-doubt notable. In the currently ongoing move discussion, I’ve suggested we retitle the article to Media circus around the public absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales. It is a teachable moment for society on how to not treat public figures when they’re recovering from surgery. However saying “we should find a delete editor” borders on WP:CANVASSING, and to mention “the UK prime minister” and the “US’s press secretary” are a totally irrelevant people to bring up (they have the same impact as saying “the man down the pub has said we should respect her privacy”) why do they have special influence in this? TheSpacebook (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her own uncle went on one of the most watched television shows in the UK and said “if it’s announced, I’ll tell you my opinion on it” which set the media and social media ablaze with conspiracies of what he was talking about. → If you're referring to his comments on 6 March, no it didn't. I struggled to find non-tabloid WP:RS on his comments except the Sky News source currently in the article, which I added. As per my previous comment, the Big Brother appearance is a non-notable sideshow that should be deleted from the article. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 22:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already did point out a BLP problem with the article (which you edit warred back in) it begins with a vague mystery of living person being "absent" when it is plain false that she was mysteriously absent; everyone in the world knew from January, she was on planned medical leave through Easter, and it continues. We know where she was and why, we knew where she was and why (although we did not know all the details), yet Wikipedia raises a question about her whereabouts? -- which is indefensible in and of itself, but then, we do not answer it in the very next breath. That's TABLOID, RECENTISM, GOSSIP writing. And worse, the entire structure is a BLP violation and so is its undue emphasis on a fake mystery (Due is a part of BLP policy). To begin to be compliant, the whole thing needs to be TNT'd from the end to the beginning - we know how it shakes out, eg. we know that the BLP subject says and the evidence suggests the edits were innocent, something people often do before posting picture. We begin with what is real, that's the only way speculation can even begin to be be properly written about in an encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the edit war was solely regarding whether the title ‘Where is Kate?’ was to be in the lede, and/or if it should be bolded. How is this a BLP violation? The “vague mystery” you mentioned was still there on both sides of the edit war. edit 1, edit 2, edit 3,edit 4, edit 5. After the edit war, I opened up a talk discussion and another editor restored my edits. Without it, the title was left unexplained. But now the consensus in the current move discussion is moving away from that title, so only now it is unnecessary. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New AFD It's not clear why we should continue reviewing the outcome of the first AFD given that it took place before the major developments on this topic and is therefore almost wholly irrelevant. There seems to be plenty of appetite for a fresh AFD knowing what we now know and this DRV is holding it up. Pinguinn🐧10:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist due to WP:BLP problems. If it had been known that Catherine had been diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy, which came out after this AfD closed -- and, if I'm not mistaken, after this Deletion Review began, this article might never have been written in the first place. Several of the "endorse" recommendations above were posted before Catherine revealed that information. --Metropolitan90(talk)15:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's per IgnatiusofLondon, I'll ask you too: preferable to a relist of what? In reference to your comment above: It was known that Catherine had been diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy when the last AfD held for this article was started. That happened on March 22. It's very possible that you are not aware of this. Also see my comment at the same indent level below yours, which is also prior to yours.—Alalch E.02:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am arguing against a future, third, AfD but in favor of the second AfD being allowed to continue and naturally resolve, and I come from a standpoint that on March 22 the second AfD should not have been closed, but what should have been closed is this Deletion review. I've said more about this further down so I won't repeat that in this reply. —Alalch E.15:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist of what? The second AfD was started on the basis of new information. If you mean a relist of the second AfD, it had already been started on the basis of the new information, and if you say that a new AfD should be started on the basis of that same new information, it is unclear why the aborted AfD that was started on the basis of that same information and had been running for a while can't be relisted. If you mean relisting the first AfD, that is an impossibility. —Alalch E.23:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind a relisting of the second AfD: as you say, nothing has changed since that AfD. In reply to your question, what makes me prefer a fresh AfD is that, per Liz's comment above, the second AfD was launched within hours of the announcement, and emotion was running high over policy. It's likely a new AfD will benefit from, shall we say, more considered rationales. But a relisting of the first AfD is to be avoided. I can't see this DRV ending any other way than endorsing the first AfD's close or considering it moot, and interpreting consensus for the article to return to AfD, whether by relisting the second AfD or recognising consensus to ignore WP:RENOM and start a third AfD within six months. In that respect, what I don't quite understand is your position that no further AfD is preferable to a third AfD. Isn't the most important result here that the article's BLP concerns, not mentioned in the first AfD, are reviewed by the community at AfD, rather than the procedural question of at which AfD they should be reviewed? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 09:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People get emotional over roads, darting topics, and doughnut shops' articles being nominated for deletion. We don't discount comments because they are emotional. Someone can be emotional and have a good argument. Volunteer time and energy was invested into that discussion and this will not just be thrown away because one person thought that participants are being emotional. That would be irresponsible. And highly irritating. The closer of the second AfD will evaluate all of the arguments and make their determination of what the consensus is if any, and several people having been emotional is not a factor in that at all. —Alalch E.10:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose "3rd AfD" (anyone can start an AfD, a deletion review isn't needed to start an AfD) but support relisting 2nd AfD. I am so strongly against this deletion review ending with a recommendation for or a procedural start of a third AfD that if this ends with something other than a consensus to relist the second AfD, I am against any further AfDs on this topic, and this !vote can be interpreted as a pure endorse of the first AfD's close (a reasonable close that should not be overturned). A third AfD is an absurdity when the second AfD can be relisted. Many participants in this discussion are probably entirely unaware of the second AfD.—Alalch E.02:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support relisting the second AfD, as suggested byt Alalch E, immediately above. The changed context of this entire story needs re-examining, but this review is not the place to do that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist second AfD - it was out of process at the time but it contains plenty of good faith comment. No need to make people copy and paste into a third one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and do not relist. The article is entirely appropriate regarding an event with massive coverage. The Princess of Wales is one of the highest profile people in the UK if not the world. The title may however need changing. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't see anything wrong with the close and while the WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments are strong on the overturn side the policy basis is weak... It seems to amount to pounding BLP in a vague and non-specific (and at this point rather bludgeony) way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist second AfD or create new AFD. While the initial close was within the guidelines and summed up the consensus of the discussion, the whole article is tabloid crap that should have been in Middleton's article, not a standalone. Given this didn't pass the five-day test, I fail to see how it can pass a five-year test. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse or 3rd AfD. The 2nd AfD is now outdated as the dust has settled. The 2nd AfD mainly contains emotional responses immediately after the announcement. Furthermore, the article seems to have been restructured since. The only way forward is a 3rd AfD. It must also be noted that there is an active forum on the Wikipediocracy which targets this article The Wikipedia monster gleefully tears down the future Queen of England. 109.235.247.80 (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what the IP (above) said on re-opening the 2nd AfD. Plus there's been a material development since that AfD was closed on Russian state activity in relation to the conspiracy theories.[7][8][9]. That puts the article on a different basis than was considered prior to the 2nd AfD's closure. An entirely new AfD is needed. DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for my rudeness but I don't quite understand how this newly emerging Russian involvement accusation necessarily leads to a new AfD. Does it in any aspect diminish or enhance the notability of the past media outcry against the Royal family, or affect how well this article serves the "scope" or "purpose" of Wikipedia? Jason211pacem (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am not to judge whether this accusation is based. And I recognize that this may help explain "why this Gate is sufficiently notable as to be made an independent page", just to the same extent as its impact on the monarchy (which I remember Ignatius finds suspicious; that means, only the damage to the royal house's credibility doesn't suffice for notability). But in regard to a new AfD, it sounds a bit weird: like, before the Russian accusation we should delete the article, after the accusation emerges we should endorse it. That's quite strange, unnecessarily politically charged. Sorry for any misunderstanding, but I just thought the Russian may not serve as a new cause for a new AfD process. Jason211pacem (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong: by now I'm still on the Keep side, insofar as "wide reports by global media + impacts that worth mentions (mass media conspiracies, medical data breach, monarchy popularity etc.) ＞ tabloid stories + other negative impacts (e.g. Kate's privacy)" still holds. The Russian accusation only adds a little weight to the Keep side and should't itself serve as a new cause for AfD, that's what I mean. Jason211pacem (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist second AfD or create new AFD: In light of new information that completely changes the context of the conversation, I think there are grounds to reopen the discussion about whether or not it should be kept or deleted, but that discussion should be held in a more appropriate venue.170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist second AfD or create new AFD as the issue has been overtaken by events and so the viability of the article merits reexamination. (IMHO, at most this should be a sentence or two in the article on Middleton herself rather than a full-fledged article). Wellington Bay (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, but run a New AFD, given that the reason for Kate's absence (if a 6-week absence after fortnight in hospital for major surgery was even notable) is now public, making such speculation look like bullying. Isn't this a speedy candidate as a hoax or harassment? Nfitz (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This deletion review has now been running for well over seven days:
To my non-impartial eye, there seems fairly clear consensus to endorse the first AfD's closure or consider it moot by returning the article to AfD (the outcome is the same either way).
The dominant question under contention in later !votes seems to be whether to relist the second AfD that Liz procedurally closed in deference to this deletion review, or whether to run a new AfD.
I am quite concerned that we could end up in an unhappy situation whereby this article is held up at this deletion review because of split opinions on the latter question. This would be unfortunate given the eagerness to review the WP:BLP violations editors see in the article, particularly in light of external events since the article's creation. We are also not really talking about the first AfD anymore, and had this DRV not been started, the second AfD would presumably have been allowed to run its course (I can't see WP:RENOM being enforced given external events, the BLP-violation concerns that weren't expressed in the first AfD, and widespread dissatisfaction with the first AfD's outcome), and the article's future would already have been decided: the second AfD would have closed yesterday. In this respect, this DRV and the disagreement about whether to relist the second AfD or run a third AfD is just holding up the discussion on the article we are all expecting. I don't envy the closer having to determine consensus between relisting the second AfD or allowing a third AfD, and so I think the conclusion of this comment is to say:
I think we are stretching the bounds of what can/should be decided at DRV; and
I think closing this DRV and moving to AfD is more important than determining consensus on whether to relist the second AfD or run a fresh third AfD, and while I would prefer a fresh AfD, what matters most is that this article doesn't stay held up at DRV.
The irony of it all is that those editors who have argued most strenuously for deletion have ended up elongating this DRV, which seems to limit the number of experienced admins willing to close it, thus prolonging the article's existence in its current form. Had they simply allowed the DRV to close as endorsed and started a new AfD, the process would be somewhere completely different, rather than languishing waiting for an uninvolved admin with lots of time to close this. Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one advantage of running a new AFD rather than relisting one of the old ones, is that there's been a major change in what the public knows between when the article was initially created and now. Thus making many of the comments in the previous AFDs (and even this DRV) moot. This would simplify and focus the discussion. Nfitz (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and do not relist. The original closer elaborated his thoughts very well, saying that a merge is going to overwhelm the original article. I don't think any new AFD is going to change the result, considering the massive media event this is. Swordman97talk to me01:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original closing decision and no new AfD no policy based reasons against this article have been made clear and all those who oppose this article mostly give emotional responses. The article currently rightly opens to talk about the media coverage. 45.91.134.226 (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the new AFD goes, there's lots of policy-based reasons. One is that there's no restriction on a second AFD, particularly when the entire nature of the situation has changed; in this case, since the closure, we've found out that the entire basis of the meme was in ignorance of the life-threatening health-emergency (though perhaps that should have been obvious after 2 weeks in hospital for abdominal surgery - that's a very long time even when things have gone badly, for someone of that age). Secondly, the revelation that a fascist tin-pot dictatorship hell-bent on conquering Europe was behind this going main-stream. It's unlikely that this closes as simply Endorse, and that there'd not be a new AFD, redirect, and/or move discussions. Other policies include WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:CRACKPOT, WP:TABLOID, WP:PROPAGANDA, and WP:NOTSCANDAL, Nfitz (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify if you are for or against deletion? The combination of (a) "the entire basis of the meme was in ignorance of the life-threatening health-emergency" and (b) "a fascist tin-pot dictatorship hell-bent on conquering Europe was behind this going main-stream" appears to be a potent "keep" rationale. DeCausa (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Seems plausible to me, too. I'm especially unimpressed with the edit summary used to tag this as G14 ("the creator bizarrely flagged this as unnecessary but didn't delete it"), which suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding of not only the {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} tag but the deletion process in general. No idea if it'd be kept at RFD. —Cryptic00:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - doesn't qualify under R3. Over the past few weeks, DRV has overturned several of this admin's incorrectly applied speedy deletions. I also find her responses to the appellant to be uncivil, unconstructive, and baselessly assuming bad faith. Any user, registered or not, is entitled to ask for an explanation for what appears to be an out-of-process deletion without being questioned about their identity or getting chided for their grammar. Owen×☎00:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both words are spelled correctly and the disambiguator is correctly punctuated, so it's not a typo; the first word is the term's canonical name and it's inarguably a unit, so it's not a misnomer. R3 doesn't require that a redirect be plausibly useful, and even if it did, nibble could plausibly redirect to, say, snack - and that's part of the point of {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. —Cryptic16:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn R3 does not apply because it is a plausible redirect. "Nibble" is a common enough term that a user may search using the disambiguator. Likewise G14 does not apply because that only covers redirect pages ending in "(disambiguation)," which this page does not. FrankAnchor16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Sapna Choudhary – Speedily overturned because all the conditions of the second limb of "Speedy closes", at the foot of the DRV instructions, obtain. The deleting sysop has reversed their decision and restored the disputed content, and every !vote to endorse has been withdrawn. We treat this kind of incident as an honest mistake and a learning opportunity, so it falls to me as closer to apologise on the community's behalf to LearnologyX for having to come here. We're sorry this happened.—S MarshallT/C13:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The subject Sapna Choudhary · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [revisions] and its AfC have been deleted several times citing WP:G11, whereas the recent AfC submitted by me maintained WP:NPOV and contained nothing that could be considered advertising or promotional. Furthermore, the 2nd AfD discussion was not well-contested, and the 1st AfD discussion, nominated in 2017 for AfD under WP:G11, saw experienced editors voting in favor of deletion, with comments such as WP:TOOSOON. It may be possible that in 2017, the subject was not covered in depth by third-party reliable sources, but now in 2024, it is well-covered in multiple secondary reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Additionally, the subject is already available on different projects of Wikipedia (in Hindi) and five other languages, further making it eligible for WP:TRANSLATETOHERE. LearnologyX (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I haven't seen the G11-deleted draft but I have no doubt that the deleting administrator applied the criterion correctly. [Overturn. After seeing the now temp-undeleted page, I recommend overturning the deletion because the content is not exclusively promotional, so this was not a correct application of G11 after all. The draft can be undeleted to let it keep existing as a draft.] The AfDs don't matter anymore: Reviewing the second AfD can't change the outcome because the content that was deleted is now outdated BLP content that is almost certainly not a good starting point for a new article, so it should not be undeleted, and, therefore, there is no reason to review that AfD. —Alalch E.16:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse because, like Alalch E., I haven't seen the deleted draft, but I have reason to trust the judgment of an administrator, and less reason to think that a new editor knows what is considered advertising or promotional by Wikipedia. I will comment that I have known editors who were new to Wikipedia but experienced journalists who had a different idea of neutral point of view and of promotional content than experienced Wikipedia editors. They may have learned, as journalists, to make the subject interesting to the reader, rather than to make the subject boring and encyclopedic. An appeal of a G11 is a difficult case at DRV. When is a draft too promotional to be allowed to be declined or rejected? I will comment that the AFDs are irrelevant. The AFDs said that two previous articles did not establish notability, and the issue here is not notability but promotional content. The title has not been salted in draft space, and the appellant may create a new draft. If they didn't keep a copy of the deleted draft on their computer, they can always use a wizard to start from scratch. Drafts that were deleted for G11 are difficult cases at DRV, except that an admin is more likely to know what is neutral point of view than a new editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When a title has been salted in article space with two spellings, we are in the territory where the ultras in the subject's fan club have become part of the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struggling to see how this could be construed as exclusively promotional. It reads as entirely neutral to me, except some mild and fixable wording in the Career section. It's not suitable for mainspace, and the refs I looked at were all useless promotional pap, but I'd never have speedied it. (And the G4 tag was of course complete nonsense.) —Cryptic22:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G11. This may still fail AfC/AfD per NBIO, but I don't see anything promotional in how the draft is written. Owen×☎00:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G11 and restore as declined draft. (I think that the rejection of the draft was harsh.) There is nothing in the draft that supports any claim of notability, but it's a draft. There is also nothing, or almost nothing, in the draft that is promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Cryptic - I respectfully disagree about the G4 tagging. The tagging was not complete nonsense. It was a relatively common good-faith misunderstanding of G4 and namespaces. The title had been deleted twice from article space after deletion discussions. That would be a valid G4 in article space. It isn't a reason to delete a draft, but I have seen that error from time to time. It was not complete nonsense, only wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The G4 tagger has been here 8 years. G4 doesn't apply in draft, it's a pretty prominent part of G4. The tagging was entirely inappropriate, even if the "complete nonsense" appelation might be perceived as hyperbolic. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Jclemens - I respectfully disagree that G4 doesn't apply in draft. It just doesn't apply in the usual situation in draft. G4 is available if a draft has been previously deleted following a discussion at MFD. It just doesn't apply when an article has been deleted following a discussion at AFD. Many experienced editors don't understand the distinction. It is a set-theoretic distinction. This wasn't a case where G4 was applicable to a draft. I have seen rare cases where a draft can be G4'd because there was a previous MFD. The G4 tagging was inappropriate, but I see why the editor made that mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting thought. With the specific text It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)., including the note about copying, it's not clear to me that an MfD'ed draft is eligible for G4: reposting content from a deleted draft into a new draft is still copying. But this is clearly an edge case, suitable for a discussion over enjoyable beverages. Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Example: An article can be deleted as an outcome of an AfD in which consensus formed that it is a copyright violation (and it was not unambigous enough of a copyright infringement, not easily discernible enough, for G12 to work; let's hypothesize that G12 had never been sought in the first place). If someone was to recreate that same page as a draft, G4 would absolutely apply to that draft, based on the AfD. —Alalch E.22:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not thinking that's a very compelling use case, since if it's contested enough such that G12 shouldn't apply, G4 should not either. Regardless, G4 excludes an AfD-deleted article in draft or userspace where the intent is to improve it. Good luck proving negative intent. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G12 precisely shouldn't but G4 should because there's an existing consensus to delete the page (the function of G4 is to prevent having the same discussion all over again) and that reason to delete doesn't care about where the content is. Can't start improving from a copyright violation, gotta start from scratch. Edit: it's not about intent at all in this case. —Alalch E.23:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another example: MfD can have a delete outcome based on content being too much of an original research, and then someone can recreate the deleted draft as an article, and no (other) speedy deletion criterion applies: G4 applies, across namespaces in this case.—Alalch E.23:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does no such thing. G4 excludes content that's in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement like I quoted above. Move it back to mainspace unchanged, and absolutely G4 would apply... but I see no scenario where G4 works in draftspace absent a consensus that the editor who did it (or requested it to be done) is not acting in good faith to improve the article. And that requires editorial judgment, and that is not an attribute of a well-crafted CSD criterion. Jclemens (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scenario comes from the fact that G4 is a general criterion that applies in all namespaces, and it not working in draftspace in the special case described does (with a caveat that makes it work after all in that special case) not mean that it does not work in draftspace in the general case. There are six deletion venues and G4 works for pages under the purview of any one of them: RfD - same redirect, TfD - sufficiently identical template, CfD - ..., and MfD - sufficiently identical draft, essay, userbox, ... What I further argue is that it can also crosscut because a consensus can be relevant beyond the narrowest scope of a venue, and it takes no editorial judgement to see that a page is identical, and it takes only a bit of administrative judgement to see that the consensus applies. —Alalch E.13:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stop spilling digital ink here, but I just don't see how it's reasonable to use G4 on draft space with the "for explicit improvement" clause I quoted as part of the text of G4. Feel free to drop by my talk page and explain more, if you care to. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G11 and G4 Per OwenX, this still isn't there yet, but it's not G11 material and should be allowed to be developed in draft in peace, or languish until G13 takes it out. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, just adding my 2 cents here, the article looks good; aside from my small concern regarding over quoting, as for notability it looks to be notable to me, but I don’t know. Geardona (talk to me?) 02:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The article looks good" I mean yeah, but I am very concerned that this user has an afc right but can't scrutinize each source properly; even some admin knows that the character isn't notable [[10]. The draft makes it obvious that the article doesn't contain any WP:SIGCOV. The only good sources were this [11] but isn't sigcov at all as it doesn't really discuss the character, and this [12] but has less coverage than Kotaku. Anyway, still failing WP:GNG and the article was just recently merged from the AFD this year; so it is still very recent.. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 03:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said the article, not the sources. Haven’t checked those yet, was going to do that later in my review; as for the AFD thing, if I had accepted, I would have to move over a redirect with history. Something I cannot do. I would appreciate it if you stopped assuming that my review was fully done. Most everything I have said is from a glance. Geardona (talk to me?) 05:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Comment what are we supposed to do here? You've added to what was discussed at AfD. You don't need to go through either us (DRV) or AFC: if you've improved the article, un-redirect it, incorporate the improvements such that the former criticisms don't apply, and let anyone who objects re-AfD it. Mind you, this only works if you understand notability and can readily incorporate it into your improved version. In general, DRV is for when someone thinks the decision was wrong and wants to contest it on the basis of the evidence available at the time. This doesn't look like that. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the changes, there's a ton of added material, including reception sections. Kotaku is going to be an OK RS for fictional characters like this per my perusal of the RSN archives. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to do here. This was submitted and declined at AfC. The decline reason was about a potential copyright issue - you could just remove the block quote and accept, but since there was a previous AfD we need to make sure that whatever's being submitted is substantially different. This is so far out of my area of expertise I'm not sure which sources in the AfC are GNG notable so I can't make any other recommendation as to what to do here, sorry. SportingFlyerT·C20:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I read WP:LONGQUOTE and I don't see that there's a copyright problem with a single block quote like that in an article of that size. It may be a stylistic issue, but not something that's going to get Wikipedia in trouble... again, as I see it. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The draft is almost the same as the deleted/merged article. If we are being asked to review whether the draft is an improvement over the deleted article, the differences are insignificant. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is not substantially identical. It's questionably better, clearly clears the G4 bar, clearly good faith, and obviously was declined at AfC once so far. Exactly the sort of iffy but earnest effort that should be coached and supported or gently corrected, not picked to pieces at DRV. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Luxury real estate – There are, clearly, encyclopaedic articles to be written about posh property, and indeed we have several, at manor house, English country house, mansion, villa, hacienda, palace, etc. etc. At issue at this DRV is the question of whether we should have an article about the industry of marketing posh property. It's a real industry with its own trade magazines, and practitioners do receive specialist training. Nevertheless, the 2017 decision to blank and redirect this content based on this discussion is resoundingly endorsed, and as an aside, "Luxury property" is not the British English for it (off the top of my head, variously "prestige homes", "country estates", "manor houses", or "mansions"). The community is divided about whether or how the disputed content should be re-created. Where there's no consensus to prevent the submission of a draft, the submission of a draft is permitted, and the reviewer may use their judgment to decide whether to move that draft to mainspace.—S MarshallT/C12:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Little to any actual policy-based reasoning was used in this discussion, nor had any discussion taken place concerning the actual contents of the article-- the nominator simply compared the name of the article and proposed redirect target with the names of another article and redirect, and of the only two participants, one merely gave a WP:PERNOM vote, while the other participant suggested that a mention within the new target article would suffice. Closing admin performed a WP:BLAR as per nom, without adding anything to the new target article as per the second participant. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't looked closely enough at the AfD to realise it was that old and assumed it was recent. I have no further opinion on the merits or otherwise of overturning the decision. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon review, I would not reinstate the article which was deleted at AfD as is, so an endorse. I have no problem if you want to write a draft of a new article using better sources than the one in the redirected article, but I'm a bit concerned about WP:DICDEF here. SportingFlyerT·C14:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closing correctly reflected consensus. And while three participants isn't much, we generally consider it to satisfy WP:QUORUM. But even if we treat this DRV as AfD round two, the provided sources do not confer enough notability to support a standalone article. That said, I do not object to any editor creating a "Luxury real estate" section in the redirect target, essentially treating the seven-year-old AfD result as a Merge rather than a redir. Owen×☎14:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as correct interpretation of consensus. This article was redirected with minimal participation seven years ago, so I have no objection to restoration to a full article if (and only if) more information is available to give luxury real estate standalone notability (which I do not believe is the case), obviously subject to another AFD. FrankAnchor14:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow re-creation. I was the person who first pointed out (at RfD) the flaws in the old AfD, though at this point there doesn't seem to be much to be gained from reopening this. It's a large industry that should have enough material to support notability for a stand-alone article, but the article as it stood before AfD did need improvement. The optimal course of action here I think would be to explicitly allow re-creation or restoration of the article (preferably with improved referencing), at the editor's own discretion. Without prejudice to a new AfD, of course. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Content is bad and redirection should not be undone. Additionally, I am against this topic as a standalone article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. This AfD was fine. The problem was obvious and needed no further comment.—Alalch E.16:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and Do not allow re-creation without consensus in support demonstrated at Talk:Real estate. Do not encourage creation of a draft without consensus at Talk:Real estate, as draftspace should not be used for content forking. The rationale for the redirect is obvious, there was no deletion, this is not a matter worthy of DRV or a second AfD. Use Talk:Real estate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So no need to add on to what everyone has said above, but one of the unspoken concerns, I'm guessing, from those not favoring a new article by this title is that the title is likely to be a spam magnet. Am I wrong? Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The redirected article has a long history that doesn’t including real spam. It does include sourcing from real estate fashion sources, which I consider weak, not really a foundation for an article so titled, but not spam. My opinion is that the article, like others listed under Niche real estate, are worthy of coverage but not as stand alone articles, a WP:Structurism issue. But more importantly is process. It was properly redirected, and there is no deletion involved, so it is out of scope of DRV. When it comes to organising and improving content, editors should use talk pages. Coordinating content on multiple pages is not well done by unilaterally making new draft pages, or unilaterally overturning a past redirect decision. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Example content was:
Luxury real estate entails greater responsibility for agents who handle transactions than ordinary real estate. They must advertise to a national audience to attract non-local buyers, whereas ordinary real estate only generally requires exposure in local media.
Priyanka Choudhary – The previous deletions are endorsed. The community has been asked to evaluate lots of draft articles about Priyanka Choudhary, and we've done that again and again, and I'm afraid that we're sick and tired of it. There are serial sockpuppetteers who keep gaming the article title to create an article about her (1, 2, 3, 4) and they have soaked up a ludicrous amount of our time and attention. The last time I closed a DRV about this, just over a year ago, I wrote: I think it is unlikely that Wikipedia will host an article about Ms Choudhary unless and until new sources, meaning ones that we haven't previously considered, emerge. These sources would need to meet each and every requirement of WP:RS. Well, the nominator's draft does indeed include new sources that weren't in the previous draft, but they're gossipy showbiz sources that en.wiki doesn't love. The work the nominator has put into the draft isn't necessarily wasted, though; you might find the Big Brother fandom wiki wants it, e.g. here?—S MarshallT/C12:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
She has attained WP:NACTOR with her roles in tv shows, films, web-series and music videos. She was the 2nd runner-up in the Indian popular reality show Big Boss (Season 16) which makes it fit to create an article for her.
The most important point to be noted is that her co-stars Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia and Isha Malviya have wikipedia articles even though they have lesser significant roles than Priyanka.
Endorse - Subject is listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests. There is a history of the gaming of titles by changing the spelling or form of her name. There is a history of sockpuppetry attempting to recreate articles on the subject. This request by an IP is no exception. The title is not salted either in article space or in draft space, although maybe it should be, so the appellant can create and submit a draft, but they probably know that the AFC reviewers will be wary. There was nothing wrong with either of the two AFDs, and her fans are doing her no good by making another tendentious request. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history shows that the appellant is submitting from an IPv4 address that does not have any previous edit history, which proves only that they are an IPv4 address, and that IPv4 addresses often shift because they are managed dynamically by ISPs. In case anyone hasn't noticed, IPv4 addresses have been exhausted, and so have to be managed dynamically by ISPs. Why are you editing logged out? Why don't you register an account (which, if pseudonymous, is more secure than editing logged out), or why don't you use your existing account? Rather than being a block-evading sockpuppet, the appellant may be a pop-up, an editor who shows up for the first time because they were canvassed on some other web site. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point, why not allow a recreation when the actress has passed WP: NACTOR and has everything required to have an independent article. Why are we denied recreation all because of some unpleasant experiences from her fans earlier? 117.209.172.233 (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, per /Perennial requests. Any article that has reached the level of a listing there has been discussed at very great length and the standard at that point is that a request from an established, high-volume editor presenting a well-sourced draft is the hurdle to be reached for us to reconsider it. This is not setting different standards per topic, it is setting a basic level of respect and consideration for people's time. A request from an IP with no edit history, presenting no sources, and just asserting the standards are met isn't going to cut it. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can present a full fledged resourced article of Priyanka Choudhary if we are allowed to do it. Which is why I have asked for Allow recreation and relist. We could have already done ✅ it and shown to you because the topic is not salted. But we didn't do it because of the number of times it has been deleted and huge number controversies surrounding the article.
Nothing whatsoever prevents you from drafting an article in a user sandbox. Mainspace and draftspace may be denied by past bad behavior, but I don't see how or why user sandbox space would be. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I am using we instead of I because we are a group of 5 editor friends who create new articles of Indian Television actors and actresses. We have come earlier for the DRV of several actors. I edit anonymously using IP because I am comfortable with that. However, one among the 5 of us has an account. If required we can ask her to come her to come here using the account.117.209.172.233 (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse existing status. NACTOR is not passed by having roles, it's passed by receiving reliable source coverage about those performances, so just arguing that she's passed NACTOR without showing the sourcing is not on. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to all editors and closing admin- @Jclemens:,@Bearcat: I have created the WP:BLP of Priyanka in my user sandbox here [13] with reliable source coverage such that it proves Priyanka Choudhary passes WP:NACTOR. I kindly request you all to go through the same.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
K. Annamalai (I.P.S) – There is consensus for the following outcomes: Salting endorsed. Draft rejected. Topic listed at WP:DEEPER (per the duplicate DRV).To anyone who might start a future DRV about this: Do not do so unless: (1) you are an AfC reviewer who wants to accept the submission because, according to your independent reasoning, the draft is ready for mainspace, but you can not for technical reasons (if you do not think that the draft is ready for mainspace, there is no need to come here); (2) you are an editor who believes that the draft should be accepted and you feel capable of starting this process with a concise statement how the draft is prima facie worthy of a review and how it is ready for mainspace.—Alalch E.13:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
So this is a my first time doing this so tell me if im wrong, but the article (prior version) Draft:K. Annamalai was deleted, and the outcome was endorsed. As a draft has been re-created, an endorsement of the draft is required from DRV (if I understand correctly). So, endorse re-creation of draft or no?
Geardona (talk to me?) 02:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Salting or Reject Draft, depending on what we are being asked and how to phrase our reply. As an AFC reviewer, I see two blatant problems with this draft. First, it is clearly written to {{praise}} its subject rather than to describe them neutrally. Second, it has been reference-bombed. For these reasons, reviewers should not spend any significant time reviewing it, and nothing should be said that might encourage the submitter to waste both their time and that of the reviewers. This does not mean that the subject is not notable or that the subject is notable. It is not feasible for reviewers to determine whether the subject is notable, because the draft is not prima facie worthy of a detailed review. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse salting and reject draft, this is still not a 'competent draft' in my opinion. The draft creator (note not the DRV filer) is the same single-purpose account that submitted it last time, and then bludgeoned the discussion so badly. There are the ongoing faults regarding notability displayed in the draft, neutrality, and an overwhelming sense that there may be an undisclosed conflict of interest at play here. Daniel (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Comment We generally never relist an AFD discussion more than 3 times and, in fact, there are editors who argue that a deletion discussions shouldn't be relisted more than twice. I can't imagine any of our closers relisting this discussion a 4th time unless it was a mistake. I see that you wanted this article deleted but you didn't put forward a very strong or persuasive argument for deletion. LizRead!Talk!05:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Liz above. Clear case of "No Consensus". I am not convinced that the second and third relists were necessary or helpful. It is very rare fir decisive comments to come in after the first few weeks. It's usually better to just renominate in 6 months. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse. The appellant presents no valid argument for relisting. In fact, if, as they say, No clear consensus reached after three relistings, then a No consensus close was the only correct option. Owen×☎08:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. Liz's close wasn't improper, and it should not have been relisted, but a detailed reading of a poor discussion shows WP:NCORP was not met. (I understand a possible remedy is to endorse the close and quickly re-nominate.) SportingFlyerT·C11:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer I very much did/do still think HighKing's argument was flawed, but I didn't respond twice because I knew that it was unlikely a "delete" close would occur. If you feel this strongly about the article, just renominate in two months. Mach6113:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, discussion had tapered off and there was no indication a fourth relist (about which I agree with Liz), would bring about a consensus. You can re-nominate it and make a stronger case for why it should be deleted, which may engender more input. StarMississippi20:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep Mach61's source table showed two independent reliable sources, which meets GNG, which means it's notable: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1) It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and 2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. I keep saying this, as this error seems to crop up every few months, but the NCORP-trumps-GNG crowd have not yet changed the guideline to their preferred narrative, so existing policy clearly still applies. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a crazy interpretation. NCORP isn't actually stricter than the GNG, but it applies stricter standards to the sources used to source articles about companies. Neither of those sources come close to meeting NCORP. One of them - the Forbes one - doesn't even meet GNG. But I guess this is an argument for another deletion discussion... SportingFlyerT·C09:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that "isn't actually stricter" and "applies stricter standards to the sources" are contradictory, right? I don't think that sort of a disconnect is a good basis for calling my interpretation crazy. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's only contradictory if you want it to be. It "isn't actually stricter" applies to the fact that NCORP doesn't add any *additional* requirements - the requirements are the same, but refined for companies/organizations. It applies "stricter standards" means that because of a company's ability to generate PR and issue announcements that are then regurgitated by press, etc, we need to carefully scrutinise the content. HighKing++ 17:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So PR and issue announcements are allowed by the GNG, but not NCORP? News to me. Why don't we just require independent RS's in the GNG? Oh wait... we have for the ~18 years I've been around, so I have no idea how what you just said reflects our policies. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not a proper interpretation of the relationship between GNG and NCORP. Jclemens has trotted this argument out previously and it has been rebutted each time. NCORP is simply the guideline under which GNG is implemented for companies and organizations, you can't say something "meets GNG" and "fails NCORP" because they're the same thing. HighKing++ 12:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm wrong, go change the portion of policy I quoted to make it abundantly clear that you're correct and I'm wrong, and let's see if that change sticks. Until then, I will continue pointing out that your argument is wrong. Also, please note that not only is SportingFlyer's argument inconsistent with itself, it's also inconsistent with yours. So yeah, not too worried that the two of you are opposing the plain text of the notability guideline with orthogonal rationales. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong and the policies don't need changing. I'm not going to bother pointing you to the numerous discussions where this has already been decided, you've been around a long time, you can figure it out yourself I'm sure. If you think you're right, go open (yet another) discussion on this same topic and I'm sure we'll get to the exact same answers and reach the same conclusion. Ping me if you do. HighKing++ 17:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is a thing, especially among people who have a very negative view of corporations and would like to weaponize notability guidelines to treat them unequally. I'm sure there have been plenty of discussions attended by people who view the problem as you do. I'm sure that those discussions have not changed N or the GNG as I note that it must logically be in order for an SNG to limit how the GNG is applied. I know your perspective, I don't agree with it, and I can do this all day. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a comment about relistings, it's a mixed bag. Sometimes no new editors show up after a discussion has been relisted but I also know a) there are some editors who only comment on relisted discussions (and I am grateful for them) and b) it doesn't happen a lot, but I have seen a discussion relisted three times and suddenly 3 or 4 editors show up to offer their assessents on the article and its sources and a consensus is reached. So, sometimes relistings are necessary to come to a valid consensus. LizRead!Talk!03:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The overall level of discussion was poor and while Liz could have decided it as a Delete based on weighing arguments/guidelines, equally there's an argument for "no consensus" for the same reasons. Don't see much of an argument to Keep though but contributors at AfD would be better served to comment on sources rather than making generic comments. HighKing++ 12:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing using primary sources is what defines a secondary source. … Mach61 23:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC) indicates that nothing Mach61 write can be trusted. That statement is overconfident and utter rubbish. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the two sources in the WP:SIRS table, the first is painfully obviously nonindependent.
The nominator should be WP:SLAPped for the extremely poor nomination. It being a proxy nomination is no excuse. Such weak nominations lead to trainwreck AfDs. Nominations should be strong and compelling, not “bit spotty”, and “the company itself isn't that notable aswell”.
Endorse - There is clearly not consensus to delete the article despite the AFD being listed for a month. Constructive arguments were made on both sides of the discussion and relisting for a fourth time (a process that is almost never done) would likely not sway consensus either way. I recommend the DRV nominator (or another interested party) follow the steps at WP:RENOM if they wish to re-nominate this article at least two months after the DRV closure. FrankAnchor13:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I will observe that there is one !vote to Overturn to Keep and one !vote to Overturn to Delete. That means that those who disagree with the close also disagree as to how it should have been closed differently. I will also comment that No Consensus is not a conclusion that anyone likes, and so some editors always have some ideas on how a consensus should have been worked out, but sometimes it is just realistic to recognize that there is no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. HighKing was and is correct about NCORP not being met but it was reasonable to close as no consensus regardless. NCORP has a protective role and is important for maintaining Wikipedia's reputability. Sometimes, when its criteria aren't met and an article is kept is spite of that, it will be the case that the community failed to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The other times when its criteria aren't met and an article is kept, it will be the case only that an article on a non-notable topic has remained a part of the encyclopedia, which isn't unusual or terrible. With regard to this article, it's the latter more innocent scenario, and enforcing removal of this NCORP-failing content isn't crucial. This is because this is a highly visible company which had placed a Super Bowl ad, advertises and markets its products rather aggressively, gets written about in various outlets even if not in a way that suits our purposes, and a Wikipedia article does not meaningfully increase its visibility, and some neutral content can be written about it. But if the content was bad and the company had low visibility I would have voted to overturn in this DRV, because it would have been a concerning failure of the process.—Alalch E.09:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Schulze STV – The community endorses the close as "no consensus", but agrees that any editor may convert it to a "redirect" outcome on their own authority. In my fifteen-plus years at deletion review, I've seen DRV overturn a "no consensus" close only a handful of times, and I think there's scope for a separate discussion on whether we're a bit too sympathetic to "no consensus" closes.—S MarshallT/C08:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The only 'Keep' !vote was from an obvious SPA COI account - MarkusSchulze - the same Markus Schulze after whom the article is named. This !vote should have been stricken out, or at least discarded, leaving just the nom and my Redirect views, either of which would have been preferable to the No consensus non-admin close. Owen×☎14:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Difficult one because only three users voted, including one SPI and one user whose sixth edit was to send this to AfD. This isn't one for a non-admin to close, because a non-admin could not delete the article. If this is relisted, after looking at the article, I'd be happy to add an additional !vote which could help gain a better consensus here? SportingFlyerT·C14:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. For the purposes of clarity for the rest of the discussion, I think any close is a WP:BADNAC where delete is a valid option for the closer, even though putting the discussion out of its slow misery as a no consensus is far from the worst thing that has ever happened on this site. SportingFlyerT·C14:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. The rough consensus that I could see was split between nom and redirect, which was in place for two whole weeks with no comments from the community. I have seen sysops closing discussions like this with almost the same closing note as mine. Hence, I took that stand. Now, as per SF, BADNAC is present which I fail to see. I can indeed close a discussion as no consensus without the mop, right? Also, OwenX could have pinged me on the talk page or dropped a discussion on my talk (per WP:DELREVD) and after a discussion I'd have happily reopened and relisted this without a DRV. Not something I expected from an admin to bypass the discussion (where it was possible) and starting a DRV right away. Nevertheless, if this DRV gets a relist consensus, I will also participate in the AfD to help it gain clearer consensus. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorseor relist (I oppose an overturn to redirect). There is no WP:QUORUM to take action despite the discussion having already been relisted twice. While two users voting to not keep could have allowed for the redirect equivalent of a soft delete, the full article is to be restored upon any request, in this case, MarkusSchulze's "keep" !vote. A third relist to attempt to gain consensus is an okay option as well (especially with this DRV providing more visibility), but certainly not necessary. FrankAnchor14:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really obliged to restore a soft-deleted page based on the request of a SPA/COI account related to it? We'd normally topic-ban MarkusSchulze from articles about himself or his work. I agree about QUORUM; another relist will hopefully resolve that. Owen×☎15:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I admit mine is an IAR !vote, but there's no quorum needed for a redirect. You or I or anyone else could do it unilaterally, so that's just bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy IMO. Honest question, assuming anyone did it following a re-close. Would you object because it wasn't the outcome? StarMississippi15:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good question. However, based on some below endorsement of the NC close, even if my own weak endorsement is ignored, it appears that redirecting without a quorum at the AFD is not the best idea at this time. Added exposure from this DRV means the AFD is more likely to have additional votes if it is relisted than otherwise would have been the case, so I do not consider that to be bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracyFrankAnchor16:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would love it if Added exposure from this DRV means the AFD is more likely to have additional votes is the case. Because the reality is regardless of how this or the AfD actually closes, there isn't a consensus (real world -- not necessarily Wikipedia Speak) which means it will come back around and is a very niche topic, which means participation will be a challenge regardless of whether we get an uptick in AfD participation. StarMississippi16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, anyone can change the article to a redirect. The COI will then promptly revert that change, and we'll be right back where we started. With an article like this, a discussion on its Talk page will rarely get much interest. This DRV brought more attention to this article (and to the SPA) than any editorial discussion would. The outcome we reach here (or in a subsequent AfD) can be enforced, whereas me unilaterally blanking the article into a redirect cannot. Owen×☎18:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse There is an upper limit on the number of relists. My suggestion is to gain consensus on the talk page for a redirect (or bring this back to AfD for a new [and cleaner] discussion). --Enos733 (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Single transferable vote per IAR since this isn't AfDx2. We really don't need seven days here or more there to enact an close that can be done by any editor, admin or not when it's a topic of minimal interest/engagement. I understand why The Herald closed this as they did and I don't disagree with it. StarMississippi18:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Star Mississippi. I'm worried that there could be a reduction of interest in AfDs, and that this AfD is a symptom of that. This isn't "things functioning as they should".—Alalch E.19:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus close. No WP:COIEDIT violation for participating in an AfD with a COI, (which someone should probably look into changing) but neither does a no consensus close bar further editorial action including the unilateral redirection discussed above. Jclemens (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Redirect to Single transferable vote. Where it was already mentioned. WP:SLAP the nom for nominating an article in the basis of some disputed facts and ignoring the lack of any independent references. Unusual nominator has a redlinked talk page and 45 edits, but seems legit.
On the basis of what policy is a COI editor's vote to be downweighted? What level of proof is appropriate for a closer to so weight a vote? Jclemens (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia-Notability. Despite, contrary to, the very poor nomination, the entire problem with the draft is Wikipedia-notability. There are zero notability attesting references, nor other sources that I can find. By the requirement that evidence of notability has to come from independent sources, a !vote for notability of the article, but the author of the topic and the three references, can’t count for much.
This is the most extreme case of non-commercial non-independence I have ever seen.
”Proof” is not required, non-denial is sufficient, but seriously, have you looked at the article title, the user’s name, and the three references?
Markus is to be respected for his transparency. Schulze STV belongs in the scope of STV, obviously, unless there is a good reason to spin it out, which there isn’t. The new editor’s objection to this in the AfD come from a very narrow perspective. A better perspective is whether the method involves transfers of single votes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think there is any need to couch my position in WP:COI. Markus’ COI declaration is so clear and obvious that I don’t agree that there is any conflict here. Transparency is a good solution to COI concerns. The question merely goes to independence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So changing "The COI editor’s" to "Markus'" in your original statement would be equivalent? That is, you want it downweighted not on a COI basis, but because the argument was poor? That didn't seem like the most obvious way to read your original comment. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you’re right, I should not have written “the COI editor”, but “the involved editor”, where “involved” means not “involved in the article” but “involved in the topic”. I feel the word “conflict” doesn’t fit quite right.
I think his argument is partly poor (“it is cited”) and partly vague assertion (“frequently mentioned in discussions”). The vague assertion comes down to trust in a user making an unsubstantiated assertion that might go to Wikipedia-Notability, but because he is involved with the topic, he is not independent, and his very weak assertion should be given no benefit of the doubt because he is not independent.
In the end, all sources utterly fail the independence clause of the GNG, starting with the three references, and including the single “keep” !voter. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as No Consensus. There was inadequate !voting, only one independent !vote to Redirect and one !vote that has been discussed at length as involved. Redirect would also have been a valid close, but No Consensus was a valid close, and permits a renomination in two months. No one likes No Consensus, but sometimes it is easier to try again in two months than to put Cinderella's slipper on someone else. We might find Cinderella in two months. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Wrong assessment. Majority was "Delete", however, further reading would show that it was "delete" in terms of it not being a cover and it being used in the "cover" parameter, not that the images themselves needed "deletion". This even was stated by the nominator, who withdrew their !vote after the issue was fixed and this was stated as well by other editors, who focused on the images not being covers (i.e. not in a "cover=" parameter) and not that the images needed deleted. I request a reassessment of present !votes from that discussion. From a personal assessment, I see 2 Keep !votes, 1 true "Delete" !vote, 1 half true "delete"/half "parameter delete" and 3 "parameter delete" !votes. There is no full consensus at all for straight deletion. In fact, since the 3 "parameter delete" !vote are not in support of a true deletion, there would be a consensus to keep the file. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)04:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid assessment of consensus by the closer. The appellant appears to be saying that the closer should have applied complicated weighing. Maybe that would have been another valid assessment by the closer. But the closer wasn't wrong in applying more straightforward reasoning. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse all of these - FfD is the most argument-based part of the website in terms of consensus, and the arguments these files need to be deleted are far stronger on copyright reasons than those supporting keeping them. SportingFlyerT·C10:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - When there is a bundled XFD nomination in which the same close was made for all items, and the appellant has the same issue for all of the items, is there such a thing as a bundled DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty of merging the four nominations into one, as they make substantively the same arguments and it is likely all four will stand or fall on the same basis. At the time of this merger, the four nomination statements were identical, with the same comment on each by Robert McClenon, the "endorse all" by SportingFlyer on the first of the four nominations, and the question by Robert McClenon on the fourth of the four. This appears to me to be reasonable and sensible, but it does not prevent contributors from recommending different outcomes for each file. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question for endorsers, as acknowledged by Robert McClenon, the argument made could have been another valid closure. Under that ground, would it be a violation to actually re-upload those images, even as valid non-free-use files, as acknowledged by the majority consensus? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)13:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as closer - The arguments basically boiled down to whether these were useful covers (WP:NFCC#8) and my assessment of the arguments in the discussion were that consensus was that they did not meet it and so delete. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is clear for this being a good closure, so I withdraw my deletion review request. I shall re-upload the images, as consensus (even here) seems ok with them being non-free images, just not covers under NFCC#8. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)16:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
User:Fhektii recently created an account, performed almost 200 edits in 2 days focused entirely on nominating articles for AfD and tagging {{coi}} on random articles, and then was indefinitely banned. I am concerned about drive-by nominations. Particularly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Richman where the reason given is Claim that he is a IEEE fellow is not verified when the article has a reference for the claim. It may very well be that these articles deserve to be deleted, I don't know, but at least some of them should be rejected due to them not being created in good faith. Mokadoshi (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. This AFD was open at the time the DRV was filed and since procedurally closed (by me) as the nominator and only supporter of deletion was indefinitely blocked. I would close this DRV myself but do not know how to close DRV's. Also, Mokadoshi should note that DRV is for challenging the result of an AFD, not challenging the presence of an AFD (that is done by voting "keep" at an AFD, or noting the reasons why the nomination is invalid in the case of a blocked/banned user). FrankAnchor18:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
We kindly request the community reconsider the deletion of the Sills Cummis Wikipedia page. Per the [notability guidelines], “Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published – even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet….” Therefore, for your consideration, below are additional published articles about/involving Sills Cummis that we believe establish the Firm’s notability per Wikipedia standards.
I don't think there's a single article here which is either sufficiently secondary coverage (all press release churnalism or authored by someone at the firm) or significant coverage of the firm (lawyer representing someone in a case where the firm is just name dropped.) Would once again endorse deletion. See also WP:PROMO. SportingFlyerT·C19:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Endorse. This is the second DRV for this AfD. The previous one was three weeks ago, by the same appellant, and was correctly summarily endorsed. I believe the appellant, an obvious SPA, is Mr. Giavonni Davis, the law firm's Marketing & Business Development Manager, making this a COI situation. Either way, these repeated, pointless DRVs for a clearly promotional article are disruptive. In addition to a speedy endorsement, I suggest the appellant be enjoined from any editing related to his (presumed) employer, including participation in AfDs and DRVs. Wikipedia isn't here to promote this law firm. Pinging Alalch E., Robert McClenon and Frank Anchor who participated in the previous DRV. Owen×☎19:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
