Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:VFU)
This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Formal review processes
For RfCs, community discussions,
and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard
In bot-related matters:
Discussion about closes prior to closing:

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Shortcut

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
  10. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 July 13}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 July 13}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 July 13|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
  • Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

  • *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
  • *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
  • *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
  • *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

  • If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
  • If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

  • Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
  • Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
  • Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
  • Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".



Active discussions

13 July 2024

12 July 2024

Beuys (disambiguation)

Beuys (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

G14 is not applicable, Joseph Beuys does disambiguate the term "Beuys". Paradoctor (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse: I'm not sure I understand the issue here. The page was created as a redirect (to Joseph Beuys), despite the confusing "(disambiguation)" in its title. Joseph Beuys is an article about the man, not a disambiguation page. It includes a hatnote to Beuys (film), but that doesn't make it a DAB. You could argue that Beuys (disambiguation) should have been speedied under R3 rather than under G14, but that's hardly worth arguing over. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (by deleting admin): G14 permits deletion of "A redirect that ends in '(disambiguation)' but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists)." Paradoctor relies on the phrase in italics, saying that Joseph Beuys performs a "disambiguation-like function" simply because it contains a hatnote linking to an article about a film. However, they ignore the parenthetical -- Joseph Beuys is plainly not a set index article or list, or even remotely similar to either of those. If merely having a hatnote were enough to justify a "(disambiguation)" redirect, then the majority of substantive Wikipedia articles would require such redirects. And once nearly every article has a "(disambiguation)" redirect pointing to it, I'd suggest that such redirects would have little to no value. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I think G14 does apply since Joseph Beuys does not satisfy this criteria : A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists). While a hatnote does provide disambiguation, the page itself does not function as a disambiguation page (such as set index article or list). Such redirects with {{R to disambiguation}} are expressly intended for use in links from other articles that need to refer to the disambiguation page. Using this redirect in such a context to identify an intentional disambiguation would be misleading if not outright incorrect. older ≠ wiser 16:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While a hatnote does provide disambiguation, the page itself does not function as a disambiguation page
    If you really don't see the contradiction in terms here, then there is really nothing to say. SMH Paradoctor (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joseph Beuys doesn't look like a set index article or a list to me, either, and it never has. The entire purpose of ... (disambiguation) redirects is when there is no primary topic for a term and so links to that term normally need to be disambiguated, but there's occasional need to deliberately link to the disambiguation page (such as in a see also section in another disambig). Endorse. —Cryptic 19:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The entirety of set index and list articles perform a disambiguation like function whereas the article on Joseph Beuys performs an information article function that has a hat note at the top. -- Whpq (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AfD. Slap User talk:R'n'B for not having done so immediately on challenge at his talk page. Speedy deletion is for where deletion is Uncontestable. Someone wants to contest it. Either the deletion was wrong, or someone needs a discussion to have stuff explained. This discussion belongs best at AfD, and does not belong at DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally, you would be right and I would support XfD for a challenged speedy. But there's simply no value to the not-disambiguation redirection in the first place, so there's really nothing to RfD about: a page ending in (disambiguation) which neither is a disambiguation nor redirects to a disambiguation page isn't a valid page. Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G14 seems to clearly apply based on all of the facts. There's no reason to send this to further discussion when this was a technical deletion, properly performed. SportingFlyer T·C 09:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Clearly correct application of G14 clause 3. Slapping a hatnote on a page does not make it a disambiguaton page. Jclemens (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Popular Consciousness

National Popular Consciousness (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think the arguments put forward by the participants to deletion discussion do not conform to the Wikipedia guidelines. The main argument was that if the article was not notable it would not have so many sources -I think the issue is not the quantity of sources but the engagement with the subject. The article has many sources that simply reproduce each other, without going deeper.. Also, I pointed out that the sources that do exist do not refer to the party but to its leader, which is not the same thing.

I have the impression that the user who closed the discussion was just counting votes not arguments. D.S. Lioness (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11 July 2024

Infobox person

Infobox person (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am not challenging the closure per se, but as I want the redirect's suitability reviewed, and recreating it is presently impossible, as the page is create protected. Consider this a criterion 3 or WP:IAR nomination. Of course, if recreation is allowed, the redirect can still be challenged with a new RfD nom; I just don't think a 13 year old discussion should permanently block off re-evaluation. If you want to know why I would like this redirect to exist, it is for the same reason existing cross-namespace redirects like cite web and cite book exist:

  1. Being very popular and highly visible templates, new users unfamiliar with namespaces are likely to want to look them up in the search bar, and will be frustrated when the search doesn't work for reasons they don't understand
  2. The title is specific enough that no one would input it expecting an actual article; this is why cite web doesn't redirect to Citation
  3. People want quick access to the template page so they can copy and paste the syntax

Even if you disagree with my reasoning, a new RfD should be held to debate about it. Mach61 14:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second read, I think this discussion should have been a "no consensus" closure on the merits. The last two delete votes say the redirect has "no purpose" without elaboration, despite Metallurgist explaining that it improved accessibility, and thus hold no weight. Two valid delete arguments, (nom and Thryduulf), two valid keep arguments, and two invalid delete arguments is not a consensus to delete. Mach61 15:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse RfD closure and salting. The linked RfD is from May 2011 and could not have been closed in any other way. Subsequently content at this title has been deleted three times:
    • October 2015: A single-line "article" (consisting only of a malformed reference tag) was deleted under criterion A7 by RHaworth, criteria A1 and arguably A3 would also have applied. It's probable the author did not intend to place the content at this title.
    • January 2017: A page consisting of just "This is My site" was correctly deleted under criterion G2, again criterion A1 would have been applicable too.
    • February 2018: An article consisting only a filled-out infobox was deleted by RHaworth under criterion A3. This was the incorrect criterion (as there was content) but deletion under A7 would have been correct as there was no assertion of importance. The author clearly did not intend to put the content at this title.
    Following the last deletion, RHaworth salted it to prevent further recreation. This is presumably what is being appealed, but it is entirely unrelated to the RfD. If the desired content was an article or something else I'd almost certainly be recommending the appellant create something in draft to be moved to this title which could then be unprotected (the history suggests that keeping the title salted until content was ready to take its place would be beneficial). However, what the wants to create is a redirect identical to the one that was correctly deleted at RfD - and if that were created I would be nominating it for deletion again using the rationale I gave as my comment in 2011 as nothing has changed since then. Bare infoboxes are not content that is useful to readers, and an editor who has not yet learned about namespaces is not yet ready to deal with even basic template syntax (and template:Infobox person uses some pretty advanced syntax). Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and keep salted per Thryduulf. This should not be a cross-namespace redirect, nor should anything else exist here that's not a cross-namespace redirect. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and keep salted there's absolutely no reason for there to be a page here, and I can't see a new RfD reaching a different result. SportingFlyer T·C 21:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It probably makes more sense to look at cite web at RfD. SportingFlyer T·C 21:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Relist per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_30#Cite_web. The very different results for CNR's with, IMO, very similar low utility suggests that consensus may have changed. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a big difference between a citation template and an infobox template so I don't think one is applicable to the other. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Jclemens. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Thryduulf. -- Whpq (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the RfD, endorse the SALTing. Procedurally, the request to removing SALT should not come straight here, but should go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Come to the Review page if you think the request for deSALTing is improperly rejected. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the RFD, Keep Salted - Close was and is correct. Agree with Jclemens and with Thryduulf. The argument about cite web is other stuff exists, and Sporting Flyer may be right. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8 July 2024

Akshay Kharodia

Akshay Kharodia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The article was deleted and directed to redirect because it was unsourced. However, the subject has become notable now with his multiple lead roles in Kandy Twist, Pandya Store, Suhaagan (TV series) and his prominent role in Awasthy Vs Awasthy. I have created a draft Draft:Akshay_Kharodia which supports all these roles with reliable sources per WP:ICTFSOURCES but a reviewer has rejected the draft. Please move the draft to the mainspace and relist it in AFD. 202.41.10.107 (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse both the deletion at AfD and the rejection decline at AfC. None of the sources presented offer SIGCOV per GNG, let alone the elevated requirements for BLP. Most are Bollywood gossip column blurbs, or routine press releases. Whether they are reliable or not is beside the point, as they offer nothing in terms of notability. Pinging Robert McClenon who reviewed the draft. Owen× ☎ 10:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer, not much to say beyond I believe my close at the time accurately reflected the consensus of the debate, and the protection of the redirect was in line with both the protection policy and with the support of a number of participants in the debate. On the second matter at hand, I would tend to agree with OwenX above that the draft rejected at AfC does not meet the GNG criteria. Daniel (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I didn't reject the draft. I declined it. There is a difference. A decline permits editing and resubmission. A rejection does not. It is true that I advised the submitter to obtain advice before resubmitting, because the title is a locked redirect that was locked due to disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly noted and amended. Owen× ☎ 13:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the AFD - Requesting Deletion Review of the deletion of an unsourced biography of a living person is vexatious litigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have a separate venue for contesting the declination of a draft at AfC, which I believe is what the appellant is seeking here, rather than contesting the deletion at AfD. While I believe their appeal is without merit, I don't think it rises to the level of vexatious litigation. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The AFC Help Desk exists for submitters to ask about declines of drafts. Questions about drafts can also be asked at the Teahouse. I didn't say that the questions about decline of the draft were vexatious. It does appear that the unregistered editor is both asking to have the draft moved to article space and to have the AFD relisted. The latter is the vexatious appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I declined the draft because, in my opinion, it does not satisfy acting notability, which requires multiple major roles. The title is redirected to the major role in Pandya Store. I did not consider the coverage of their role in Suhaagan (TV series) to be sufficient, and paid very little attention to roles in series that do not have their own articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse largely based on the comments of the AFD closer and AFC reviewer. The sources provided were not sufficient for a standalone article at the time of the AFD and still are not. I do not consider this request to be vexatious litigation as it appears to have been made in good faith. Frank Anchor 11:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6 July 2024

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Pragati Chourasiya (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article is a redirect to the page of one of her shows. Now she has already done several significant roles and is also playing the lead in Suhaagan (TV series). Ideally a recreation of the article should be allowed. 202.41.10.107 (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


Recent discussions

5 July 2024

List of NCAA Division III independents football records

List of NCAA Division III independents football records (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm not sure what should be done here. If the closer really felt that the keep votes should have been discounted as mentioned and that there was "a clear consensus to delete", then it should be deleted. The given merge target was only suggested by one person and thus feels like a supervote. Moreover, the given target very clearly won't support the giant off-topic stats dump that this would bring to it. As desperate as relists can be sometimes, maybe that would be better here to get some more eyes on this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as the closer: if the appellant isn't sure what should be done, what is the remedy being sought here? When Delete is a valid outcome, and the content isn't in violation of policy, then both Redirect and Merge are valid alternatives. My use of "selective merge" in the result makes it clear there is no intention to include all, or even any of the content in the target, which may simply degenerate into a Redirect. The choice of what, if any, to merge is an editorial--not an administrative--one. There's no harm in relisting, and I had likely done so myself had the appellant contacted me directly prior to filing this DRV. But as said, it's not clear this is what they want, and I don't believe an outright deletion is correct with a valid ATD. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was being generous with the relist suggestion. ATD doesn't require that you avoid a "delete" outcome if it's called for. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True, ATD doesn't require avoiding deletion, it merely allows it, and I exercised my prerogative to pick an ATD that was minimally destructive. If you are arguing for deletion, as you now seem to be, please show us which part of the article's content violates policy to the point where it requires deletion. Owen× ☎ 14:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse-ish, I personally would have closed it as N/C, but a merger is an editorial action and not an admin one so it's one anyone could have taken, including OwenX following the close. While there wasn't support for retention as a standalone, nor was there a case that the information needed removal-just relocation. I don't see this as a super vote so there's nothing wrong with the close which certainly falls within closer discretion. Star Mississippi 14:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - not a single participant !voted "merge". This wasn't a close, it was a super vote. Absolutely unacceptable close. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may have missed Jweiss' unbolded merge suggestion (I did too at first) Star Mississippi 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I saw that. But it wasn't even their preferred stance, let alone the consensus of the discussion on a whole. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closing statement correctly dismissed the keep votes, which were primarily based in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, showing a policy-based consensus to not keep the standalone article. Merging was suggested by one user and there was no stated opposition to a merge from the delete voters. Frank Anchor 02:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (to Redirect, with history available to optionally merge‎ to NCAA Division III independent schools). Unless the closer immediately performs the merge. AfD consensus to merge requires a strong proponent of the merge who has a plan for how to do the merge. Leaving the article with that tag on top is a pretty poor presentation to readers. AfD should not be used as an alternative to Requested merges but with imaginary fairies who will complete the merge. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It doesn't matter. AfD "redirect" (the usual "redirect" outcome whereby history remains accessible) and "merge" are the same. If the outcome is "redirect" the content from history can be copied, and if someone does that, that will constitute a merger. If the outcome is "merge" and the page is not initially replaced with a redirect, the would-be performer of the suggested merge can decide to replace the page with a redirect saying "there's noting to merge after all, as this content according to my independent editorial judgement does not belong on the suggested target page". The latter can be followed by someone copying all or some of the content from history and adding it to the suggested target article, and this can be contested by reverting that addition, and that makes for a regular content dispute which is resolved by identifying the minimum of transferable items, and through incremental editing. No need for a DRV.—Alalch E. 21:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does matter. “Redirect” means the page is no longer live. “Merge” means that the page remains as before, except with a variation of a mergeto tag, indefinitely. The “Merge” result is functionally the same as a “No consensus” result. If it was a “no consensus”, it should be closed as “no consensus”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it functionally the same as "no consensus", when, in the end, an AfD "merge" equally turns the page into a redirect as the "redirect" outcome, with the only difference that there is not a set time for doing it after closure and tagging. But there is a general expectation that it will be done. It's not like someone can say "okay, well, this shouldn't be merged after all, in my opinion, so I will remove the merging tag, and the AfD should be interpreted as a 'no consensus' discussion from now on"; or: they can unilaterally remove the tag but only if something significant is done with the content while the page is tagged, which is claimed to address the cause for the AfD's outcome -- equivalent to how an article can be restored from a redirect, given a reasonable effort, which can be contested in a new AfD. —Alalch E. 22:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Merge” doesn’t turn the page into a redirect. It leaves the page as it was but with a new tag on top. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which has to resolve into the page being turned into a redirect. It can't resolve into the status quo ante with the article staying the same as it was sans tag. (It can however, resolve into the article being relevantly changed and kept, which is the same as restoring the article from a redirect; that's a rarer scenario, not the primarily intended thing to happen.) —Alalch E. 23:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it does not have to resolve. And with not a single editor having expressed a wish to do the merge, it was a bad close. I read a consensus as per by bold !vote. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I do a zero-byte merger now by copying the content over to the target article and self-reverting and redirecting the source article (one way to do it; another way would be to say in the summary at the source article: "redirect - nothing to merge as none of this content makes the target article better, and no one else has identified any such content"), that redirection can't simply be undone, and has the same status as a redirection from a "redirect" AfD. —Alalch E. 23:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You could do that zero byte merge, but it would be an independent editorial action. It would not reflect the close and could be reverted at any time on that basis. A zero byte merge is called a redirect, and the close does not say redirect. The Keep or Merge !voter, or anyone agreeing with them, would be justified in reverting you. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A merger is at least two actions, one on each side. Anything that happens at the target side is an independent editorial action but the redirection at the source article isn't: the page stops being a live article per the AfD consensus that the page should not be retained as a standalone page; that's one part of the "merge" outcome. That part of the merger is fixed. The variable part is what exactly happens to the target article. That's the area of normal editorial decision-making. The editor unhappy with what if anything was merged can make the desired changes themselves by copying the content over from history under the redirect and by simply editing it. There's never a need to undo the redirection. —Alalch E. 12:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist – I intend to participate – or overturn to no consensus and allow renomination. Closing as merge was a WP:Supervote (essay) with aspects of both "Forced-compromise" and "Left-field".
    1. The AfD was relisted once, and two relists are permitted by WP:Deletion process#Relisting discussions (guideline, shortcut WP:RELIST).
    2. As 35.139.154.158 and Sergecross73 wrote above, Jweiss11 suggested merging without justification or bolding. The recommendations of WP:Merge what? (essay) were not followed.
    3. Since OwenX gave merge extra weight, I expect him to have checked that it was reasonable or, in his words, "valid". I skimmed the articles and identified obvious issues in two minutes, and I confirmed them in a few minutes more.
      1. List of NCAA Division III independents football records is a historical list of season records going back to 1973. Very few schools are included in recent years: 2024, 2023, and 2022 each list one or two teams.
      2. NCAA Division III independent schools is the current list of independent schools. The Football section contains only Maine Maritime Academy, which is highlighted in pink because it will join the Commonwealth Coast Conference in 2025. No records are included for any sport. There is a historical list of former full (all sports) independents under Former members.
      3. A comprehensive merge would create WP:WEIGHT (shortcut to WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, policy) problems. Merging only 2024 would have the same problems, only less pronounced.
    4. If no content is merged, I believe the redirect would be deleted at WP:Redirects for discussion as "not mentioned at target".
    5. If the merge outcome is not overturned, a merge discussion to reject merging the content and another deletion discussion will be required.
    6. Deleting List of NCAA Division III independents football records has a low cost, as recreating it from scratch would be easy. It's boilerplate and transcluded Category:NCAA Division III football independents standings templates formatted in a table. Side note: template transclusions are not creative content requiring attribution per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed (guideline, shortcut WP:NOATT).
    Flatscan (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two follow-up comments:
    1. This is Jweiss11's recommendation at the AfD: Keep per Thetreesarespeakingtome. At the very least, this article could be merged to NCAA Division III independent schools. It includes no details beyond the destination's title and makes no argument for merging, so it should be given very little weight toward a merge outcome.
    2. Regarding WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion (policy, shortcut WP:ATD), I wrote a policy and consensus analysis that Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion in July 2022. There have been subsequent discussions, but no material policy changes.
    Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Admins making ATD decisions consistent with the points made, rather than bolded !votes, in a discussion are not supervoting. They're doing their policy-based job by determining the rough consensus. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - As Jclemens says, Merge is a valid alternative to deletion based on the comments in the AFD. It is true, as SmokeyJoe implies, that Merge can be a problematic ATD because it leaves the merging to be done by gnomes. (We don't know whether to believe in fairies, but we know that gnomes are very real and do a lot of useful work.) That is, closing admins are given an option that can be incomplete. That is a policy issue that doesn't need to prevent admins from following standard closing instructions and selecting Merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (or overturn to redirect) - there is no explanation for how anything other than a "zero-byte merge" would be appropriate. A merge isn't just a "compromise" between keep and delete, it is actively making a different article worse, in a way not considered by discussion participants. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or overturn to delete - although in general I think closers should be able to implement reasonable ATDs, merging here is not desirable because the content would be undue for the target, and a redirect would violate WP:RASTONISH. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 17:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Down-ball

Down-ball (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer did not allow adequate time for new voices to engage in discussion after AfD was re-listed for that express purpose. Closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly Rockycape (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • You do not appear to have discussed this with or notified @Drmies. The latter is required. That said, endorse. It ran more than sufficient time after it was relisted on 28 June. Please do not bludgeon this discussion as you did the AfD.Star Mississippi 03:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've pinged Drmies as I was unable to add to Drmies User Talk due to restrictions Rockycape (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Star Mississippi: I thought this too (and originally drafted a reply to the user on my talk page that pointed them to Drmies' user talk page), but in their defence Drmies' user talk page is ECP so they can't edit it. It was discussed with Drmies here instead: User talk:Rockycape#Nomination of Down-ball for deletion. It is for this reason I assume they couldn't post the talk page notification either. Daniel (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After the AfD was re-listed it was not the length of time (one week) that was the issue per se but it was that re-listing for one week did not result in any new voices. Closing did not allow adequate time for new voices to engage in discussion of AfD. Rockycape (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's allowed as part of the discussion here I'd like to raise the following point. "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." was not discussed on the Down-ball page. This was a new page and would have benefitted from time to develop. Before being listed AfD this author would have very much appreciated being given more time to develop the article. Rockycape (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "20 June 2024 Rockycape created page Draft:Down-ball": This means the page existed for approximately two weeks. The expectation that a newcomer has two weeks grace to get a newly created page up to scratch is not reasonable.Rockycape (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. You should have gotten it up to scratch before putting it in mainspace. —Cryptic 07:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree in principle about putting a draft together first. Have you seen the complexity of trying to follow the processes? The Deletion Review for example is not that straight forward. Rockycape (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussions are not relisted indefinitely until a preferred outcome is attained. I'd support a restoration to draft with a lock on moving if an independent editor thinks sources actually exist. @Rockycape I really think you should edit about something else.
    Thanks @Daniel for the correction on not advising the closer. My error. Star Mississippi 13:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Star Mississippi I get why you would say that I should edit about something else. I'm also passionate about Tennis, Pickleball, Table-tennis. All those sports are already well covered. It is is my other passion Down-ball that we are discussing here. It certainly would be easier to edit on other topics than Down-ball. Rockycape (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – The AfD was properly closed. The policy-based comments were quite consistent in saying that the article's sources were insufficient to distinguish that there was a specific game distinct from other similar and similarly named games and thus the offered sources failed to establish notability. If new sources were to be discovered, it would be possible to create a new draft based on them, but it should not be accepted into mainspace until the issues brought up at this AfD are properly considered. My involvement was at IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help where a question was raised about behavior of another editor. I read through the AfD at that time and saw no reason to pile on. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two earliest revisions, which had been happily living as a redirect to Four square since 2006, should be restored, since they're unrelated to the article properly deleted at afd. (It can then be sent to RFD to determine whether Downball is a better target.) —Cryptic 07:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've undeleted those two revisions. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate and re-close by an admin in good standing. Locking out your Talk page from an entire class of editors is effectively a request for desysop, per WP:ADMINACCT. As with a compromised admin account, any administrative action taken by such an account can be reverted by any uninvolved admin acting in their independent capacity, with a notice left on WP:BN. If you're tired of interacting with the editing public, you are no longer an admin. Changed to Endorse after reviewing the exchange with the appellant that resulted from them emailing the closing admin. Thank you, Star Mississippi, for moderating this.
As for the substance of the appeal, it is without merit. WP:RELIST clearly spells it out: A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. There is no need to keep that AfD open just to give the appellant more time to bludgeon participants. Owen× ☎ 10:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was an involved editor and have been dealing with the requester's sealioning at my talk page for the past few days, so I'll refrain from offering a !vote in this review, but I do believe the closer interpreted the consensus correctly. I will point out that despite the requester's protestations of being a "newcomer" and invocation of WP:DNBTN, they have been editing since 2018 and in every discussion seems unwilling to understand core Wikipedia policies on WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR, which is why the page was worthy of deletion and why they were unable to persuade other editors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are an SPA only here to promote this game (and badger editors about it), which is why I believe we'll need an edit/move lock if this goes to draft space. Star Mississippi 14:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is as good a place as any to refute accusations of being a badger-er. In real life I'm passionate about Down-ball (school yard game played against a wall). That's it in a nutshell. As per your suggestion stopping someone from edit/move in advance of something going into the draft space seems like over-reach. Rockycape (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    stopping someone from edit/move in advance of something going into the draft space seems like over-reach it's not, because you continue to badger and prove you don't respect the community consensus that Down-ball is not notable. The alternative is you losing any access to edit it. Star Mississippi 00:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. After reading through the lengthy discussion which includes a lot of back-and-forth (including some bludgeoning by Rockycape), I observed there is only one “delete” vote outside of the nom, therefore can not be consensus to delete. If all of the keep/ATD votes are discarded, there is not a WP:QUORUM to delete, and would have to be closed as no consensus or relisted (not eligible for soft delete as it was previously prodded by the AFD nominator). Add in support for redirect, there is a quorum supporting this page not being kept as a standalone article. Consensus to delete or redirect could come with further discussion, thereby making relist my preferred option, though I would also support an overturn to redirect. Frank Anchor 14:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect added by McMatter is a reasonable outcome, largely per Cryptic above. So changing my !vote to neutral. Frank Anchor 18:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There were only 2 options to interpret the policy based points in that discussion delete or redirect. The deletion has occurred and it can once again be redirected to one of the other games which both claim to be same game but yet not. I would also support moving the article to the draft space, that is technically outside the scope of this discussion. @Rockycape the constant badgering, didn't help your case at all and it is probably time to go through the WP:AFC process or move on to other topics. The only 2 keep votes were WP:IKNOWIT or WP:ILIKEIT votes and had zero bearing on the discussion. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side note I have since re-added the redirect back to Downball McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mcmatter: Down-ball now redirects to Downball. As this is a Deletion review on Down-ball, making Down-ball redirect to Downball is over-reach of this Deletion review. I am objecting to this because it has the effect of burying Down-ball and shortcutting any discussion of whether this adds or detracts from both Downball page and Down-ball (Draft) page which I plan to recreate if not restricted from doing so. Rockycape (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please undo redirect from Down-ball to Downball. I do not see any benefit other than burying Down-ball (Draft) page Rockycape (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rockycape, not one thing in your statements above is factual or correct. If a suitable version is drafted, then all of this can be overcome fairly easily and nothing I have done is technically out of process. Follow the WP:AFC process and the team there will be able to get everything situated that needs to be. Once again I recommend you stop replying to everyone's comments and let the community do it's thing without your continued badgering. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In one foul swoop you both refute everything in my statements above and try to reference my arguments as badgering. I will state my argument more compellingly. By redirecting Down-ball to Downball prevents someone from easitly recreating the Down-ball (draft) page as it adds the task of removing the redirect. McMatter's action shows how someone who is savvy with wikipedia can put up additional steps to frustrate another editors intended actions. I am deliberately avoiding casting aspersions on McMatter as I cannot know there motivation but the impact of their actions remains. Rockycape (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that you took action and reported it here in this Deletion Review. If it's ok for you to take action out of process and mention it here then it is fair game for me to take issue with your actions. Finally please refrain from labelling my discussion points here as badgering as this is the current Deletion Review process here. Rockycape (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid summation of the discussion. Also WP:QUORUM is for discussions with 'very few or no comments', I don't see that as a concern in this instance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse probably the correct outcome. It's clear from the few available sources there's a sport called down-ball which is different from four-square, but it appears to be just too colloquial enough to pass GNG right now. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, the close was a WP:Supervote. Not enough participants argued for “delete”. Notability unproven is not notability disproved. Non-notability is not necessarily a reason for deletion, especially when it is a common topic with very similar topics with articles; probably a redirect (keeping the history available) was a better outcome. In any case, the discussion has to support the outcome. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Request temp undeletion. User:Pppery‘s selective undeletion of two old versions is confusing. The AfD includes warnings to not confuse with downball, and it seems too hard to not confuse with downball. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not confusing. It's the desired end state if this DRV closes at endorse, which is what seemed at the time to be the consensus. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Pppery, it was the right thing to do, going forward, yes, no issue with the redirect and undeleting the old versions. But, for the purpose of this DRV, I’m confused as to what was deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This is a clear WP:1AM situation, in which Rockycape (and one editor with three total edits) made their case but failed to convince the Wikipedia community. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rockycape (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rockycape, DRV is not a forum for re-arguing the AFD, providing more sources and asking that the article should be kept. It's for assessing whether the closure was reasonable. That's all that it is about and your comments have ranged all over the map from complaining about the redirect to complaining that other editors didn't help you enough. This verbosity doesn't reflect well on you or swing other editors to your point of view. Your best bet right now is asking, nicely, for the article to be restored to Draft space. Perhaps if you changed your attitude and were not so critical, editors would help you out more. This is a collaborative platform, so collaborate. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair call @Liz and thank you.
Undelete to draft - For the record. Dear fellow editors (& Deletion_review contributors), I'd like to ask for the article Down-ball to be restored to the Draft space. For those following along I've added an additional five (5) references specifically about Downball Wall.
Thanks, Rockycape (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently having more collaborative conversations with other editors than I've had before and am deliberately avoiding combative ones and also avoiding replying to votes against here. If there is any mechanism to extend this Deletion review then I would very much appreciate it very much colleagues. Thank you Rockycape (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what happens when you stop taking everything personally and making up your own rules about how things should run vs learning and understanding how to they do operate on the site. Now to answer your question you have already taken this way outside the scope of deletion review, which is just meant to review the close of the discussion. I would recommend you either take all of this to Talk:Downball or the talkpage of the draft if you are still considering going that way. Looking at the consensus that has already formed here there will be no extension for the review. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 05:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to disagree with you McMatter. In regards to next steps following the closure of this Deletion Review, I'd appreciate being sent a copy of the now deleted down-ball page. Rockycape (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting as I did on @Rockycape's talk that I think a draft should be move protected to enforce AfC and avoid this whole cycle again since while there's split on redirect or not, there's no clear consensus that downball is a distinct & notable sport Star Mississippi 12:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi I created the draft based on a discussion with Rockycape on my talk page. Please move protect it: Draft:Downball (wall and ball game). —Alalch E. 14:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done if an AfC reviewer or other established, independent editor feels it's ready, the protection can be removed without discussing it with me. Star Mississippi 01:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a restoration to draft space would ultimately be futile for the reasons discussed ad nauseam in the AfD. Of the sources the page creator brings to DRV, Hyndman and Mahony et al, McKinty 2016, and McKinty's "Hidden Heritage" describe downball as the existing wiki page does: a game played on a flat surface similar to four square. Hyndman and Chancellor includes a passing mention of "downball" with no reference to how it is played. The University of Melbourne sources were discussed in detail in the AfD and are fieldwork observations from folklorists. One describes downball the way the page creator does (with a wall); another describes the wall-based game as different from downball. Hunt 2007, a physics paper, describes a variant of downball that involves a wall. As others have noted above, and as participants in the AfD decided, there is insufficient support in the sources for a separate "down-ball" page, but it seems like there is room for the page creator to add (or perhaps better, propose on the talk page to add) a section to the downball page called "Variants" about the version of the game involving a wall, using Hunt and the U of Melbourne folklore page as sources. There's evidence that some people play it with a wall, there's just no evidence that it's a completely different game with an identical name. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rockycape, after this DRV, it might be undeleted to draftspace. If that happens, read advice at WP:THREE. On moving forward, my suggestion is to look at merging these variants of schoolyard ball games together. It is not best to have many similar articles on vaiants of much the topic. They should be compared and contrasted in a main article first. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok @SmokeyJoe. Also thank you for your suggestion. Rockycape (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It will never be the case that we will stably have the following two articles in the encyclopedia at the same time: (1) an article titled exactly "Dowball", about a game; (2) an article titled exactly "Down-ball", about the game downball, but in one of its variants. That's just not going to be. Moving on... So the content was about an ostensible discrete variant of the game downball that has no specific name ("downball" and "down-ball" are obviously arbitrary spelling variations and if the-thing-with-its-real-or-purported-variant(s) that is dowball and is spelled "downball" or – as any such A+B word will necessarily also sometimes be alternatively spelled – "down-ball", any of its variants will also certainly be spelled downball or down-ball, unless they have a specific name), which if truly identifiable from the sources as a coherent variant (doesn't seem to be so according to Dclemens1971), is probably only one of downball variants all equally spelled downball/down-ball, as they would all simply be nothing but downball in its ostensibly varied forms...
I understand how this may seem like a classic ATD moment; this would have been a redirect from alternative spelling (hyphenation) with some potentially merge-able topical content underneath. But I believe that it must have been bad content of the WP:SYNTH kind. One participant did !vote redirect; still, the outcome was to delete, which at first doesn't seem great. But, presuming that the content was bad, there is a reason against applying an ATD, which is how I understand Dclemens1971 suggestion not even to undelete. So, in totality, it was fine to delete this. The sources are accessible and if any statements need to be added to the downball article backed up by those sources, it should probably be done from scratch.—Alalch E. 20:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" - from specific notability guidelines
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Subject-specific_notability_guidelines:~:text=reliable%20sources%20generally.-,Notability%20is%20based%20on%20the%20existence%20of%20suitable%20sources%2C%20not%20on%20the%20state%20of%20sourcing%20in%20an%20article,-%5Bedit%5D )
I have a new argument based on new information that has come to light about wikipedia page noteability. Down-ball page should not have been deleted when Noteability is being based on the state of the sourcing in the article. (see section and link immediately above).
The editor who listed the AFD has been a lone figure who states that they went searching for suitable new sources. This is admirable but unfortunately they were unable to uncover suitable new sources. However, since then and in a short time new sources have been found which would indicate that other new sources are out there and just need to be found. To be clear I can't be certain that new quality sources will be found but more importantly others cannot be certain that they will not be found. The benefit of the doubt needs to be on side that new sources may be found. "Innocent until proven guilty" if you would allow me. The finding of new sources listed in this Deletion review necessitates that the Down-ball article should be restored or at least sent back to draft. I appreciate fellow editors taking the time to consider this new information and I apologise in advance if I am raising the ire of some. Yours faithfully, Rockycape (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockycape, this is not AFD 2, reasons for keeping will not be considered in this discussion. This discussion is only about whether the closer read the consensus correctly and whether the close of the discussion be overturned or not based on that discussion. The notability of the subject is not a part of this discussion and the way to prove whether it is notable or not, is to re-draft the article out at Draft:Down-ball and I recommend then having that draft reviewed by an experienced editor. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@McMatter, I agree this is a Deletion review and not AFD 2. However I disagree with your conclusion about the admissibility of that information in this Deletion review. My reason for raising this Deletion review remains the same as when I raised it in that "The Closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly". The newly raised information (specific notability guidelines) is relevant because it relates to Consensus.
"Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and cited recorded consensus. Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if the entire page is found to be a copyright violation, the page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, that argument is no longer relevant."
The closer in determining consensus should have paid closer attention to the new sources that were added in the AfD discussion and determined the result as no consensus.
For completeness, no editor has yet contented that this is an exceptional case requiring "a local consensus to suspend a guideline.
( Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area. )
In summary, the newly highlighted information is relevant to this Deletion review as it adds weight to the argument for the reason behind why this Deletion review is being considered in the first place. Rockycape (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No these are arguments that were meant for the AFD, not deletion review. Read through the purpose at the top of WP:DRV. Again it is time for you to step back and go work on the draft or add your content to the Downball article as suggested by others. At this point it is very close to becoming disruptive to the process with your constant selective interpretation of policies and guidelines. The closer's job is to determine the consensus of the discussion had based on the policies in the arguments in that discussion. You brining up new arguments here to "keep" the article is moot and does not belong here, instead stop wasting your time in this discussion and follow the advice given to you by myself and others in this discussion and elsewhere. It is time to drop the stick. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We have a situation here that we occasionally, but too often, have at DRV. There is an Article for Deletion discussion which has become difficult to close because one editor has filibustered the discussion. Sometimes the disruptive editor is arguing for deletion. Sometimes the disruptive editor is arguing against deletion. The situation is essentially the same either way. An admin is bold enough to close the problematic discussion. The same editor then appeals to Deletion Review seeking to overturn the close. The same editor then resumes the filibuster. What should be done at Deletion Review? I think that, unless it is obvious to the editors at DRV that there was an error, the editors at DRV need not review the filibusters in depth, but can Endorse the close, because bludgeoning a discussion should not be rewarded. If another editor whose participation in the AFD was not disruptive (or who did not participate at all in the DRV) wants to appeal, DRV should give them full attention. This is such a case. The same editor who filibustered the AFD is filibustering the DRV, and this conduct should not be encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both because this was a correct closure and because the appellant should not be rewarded for filibustering. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point I'm happy to put a line in the sand and withdraw from providing further input. If an individual is suggesting sanctions then I think that is over-reach. It's embarrassing to review the large blocks of text that I've added to this deletion review so I've removed multiple comments. I'm also ok if they are undeleted.Rockycape (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have given Rocky a final warning for, among other things, So instead of the easy low blow of impugning my motives please take a look at yourself. and the ongoing bludgeoning. If it continues, I strongly suggest a p-block to allow consensus to form. Star Mississippi 01:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Star Mississippi, I apologise unreservedly for the comment and have removed it now. regards, Rockycape (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to offer an general apology to all for bludgeoning of this Deletion review and the preceding AfD. It wasn't my intention to bludgeon and it would have been much better to stop earlier than this Deletion review. When I most recently read about bludgeoning with a clear head I realised my mistake. I'd like to add that several fellow editors were trying to help by messaging directly to warm me. You particularly have my thanks. Rockycape (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and go build an article in draft or sandbox space that demonstrates notability through sufficient independent reliable sources. Please. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 July 2024

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
1971 East Central State Academicals: Manuwa/Adebajo Cup (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting a review of the deletion of the page 1971 East Central State Academicals: Manuwa/Adebajo Cup. The page was deleted and moved to Draft:1971 East Central State Academicals season by reviewers User:CambridgeBayWeather and User:Classicwiki. I did not create this title or the content in the draft, which is invalid.

The original content I created under "1971 East Central State Academicals: Manuwa/Adebajo Cup" meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. The move and deletion were done without proper consensus or discussion with me, the original creator.

  • Reason for review: The original title "1971 East Central State Academicals: Manuwa/Adebajo Cup" specifically highlights the important event and is more precise than the draft title. The reviewers created the title "Draft:1971 East Central State Academicals season" and added invalid content that does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines.
  • Attempts to resolve: I have tried discussing the matter with the reviewers on their talk pages, but we have not reached a resolution. I have also sought input from the article’s talk page but have not received a satisfactory response.

--Msogbueze 12:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative close. Deletion Review is not an appropriate forum to discuss a page move/draftification during new page review. There is no deletion decision to review. Discussion needs to take place on talk page. There is no evidence that the nominator discussed this on the other editors' talk pages either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close - I am not entirely sure what the filer is requesting, but it does not appear to be within the scope of Deletion Review. There may be three content issues, none of which are in scope of DRV:
  • 1. The article was draftified. Either it can be submitted for AFC review, or it can be contested by unilaterally moving it back to article space, which can then in turn be contested by AFD.
  • 2. The page was renamed. The title can be discussed on the draft talk page or article talk page, or it can be Moved, or a Requested Move can be used.
  • 3. The filer says that the content in the draft is invalid. The content in a draft can be discussed by normal editing and draft talk page discussion. If the draft is moved back to article space, the content in an article can be discussed by normal editing and article talk page discussion.
Deletion Review is the wrong venue for whatever the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 July 2024

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
British Rail DHP1 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was not a consensus for deletion in this discussion. The initial comments were all either "there are no sources" or "there is no proof this exists", which I fully refuted by finding multiple reliable sources that demonstrate existence. After I presented those sources there were only three comments left, one of which clearly had not read anything other than the nomination statement. One comment from the nominator favoured merging or deleting on the grounds that few people had engaged with the discussion, and one !vote recommending a straight keep (indicating the existence of additional sources I did not present, and which nobody engaged with). The closing summary clearly does not accurately represent the discussion - nobody mentioned the sources were scattered, and 50% of the people engaging with them wanting the article kept and 50% open to a merge is not evidence that I'm "almost alone" in thinking it warrants keeping or merging. Outcomes of merging, no consensus, keeping or relisting for more input would have been reasonable readings of the discussion but straight deletion was not. In the discussion with the closer Sandstein started by claiming that sources conclusively demonstrating existence do not invalidate !votes based on sources not existing and no proof of existence and since then has not responded at all in about 4 days despite engaging elsewhere on their talk page. Black Kite's comments at Sandstein's talk are ones that might have been useful discussion points in the AfD but were not made there (and are not entirely correct anyway). Andy Dingley also states that it might have been closed as delete because they !voted keep, I don't have an opinion about whether that is true or not but iff it is then it's significantly problematic even ignoring everything else. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn (to no consensus, or possibly redirect). I didn't see this discussion until it had closed, or I would have commented that there is enough here to keep something, even if it's only a redirect. Every one of the commenters who !voted "Delete" pre-dated Thryduulf's sources, and I suspect that some of them might have re-assessed their comments in the light of them, especially as one said "I'd maybe merge this ... but we don't have a source", another said "if it were conclusively proven to exist it would only merit a brief mention..." and a third said "Not a single source provided to support the locomotive's existence". Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for additional input or overturn to no consensus. Andy Dingley's keep is the decider here - if that vote doesn't come in, it's clearly a delete, with only one person advocating for an ATD. But the delete !votes are that it's unverifiable or unsourced, and that's definitively wrong. It's not the closer's job to assess the sources, either, which was suggested. A third relist would be painful to the nom as expressed in the discussion, but would allow for more perspective. SportingFlyer T·C 13:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to allow additional responses now that good sources have been found. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Andy Dingley's parting comment on User:Sandstein's talk page is just S**t stirring. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something which I've had plenty of from both you and Sandstein over the years. And now in the AfD, he pulls the "I see no Keeps here" trick. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not sure what User:Andy Dingley is saying that I have stirred over the years. We have at least two issues here, a content issue about a locomotive AFD, and conduct issues about personal attacks by User:Andy Dingley on at least two editors. Only the content issue is in scope at DRV, and I will try to ignore the aspersions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus as the biggest concern by the delete voters (lack of coverage) was refuted by several sources posted by Thryduulf. One delete and one keep !vote were made during the 13 days between these sources being added and the AFD being closed, with the late keep vote referencing this coverage. Relisting is an adequate option as well, and would be my second choice. This can allow for further analysis of these sources, particularly with added visibility from this DRV. Frank Anchor 16:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin's comment: In my view, this review request should be procedurally closed because it contains personal attacks on me as the closer - namely, the unsubstantiated and untrue aspersion that I closed the discussion as "delete" only because some other person I don't know was in favor of keeping the article. Sandstein 16:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a personal attack to state that accusations against you have been made and not responded to. I made it very clear that I am not making the statement myself and am offering no opinion on its merits. You have had nearly 5 days in which to respond to the accusation or remove it as a personal attack, but you chose to do neither and neither have you engaged with any of the other points which are unrelated to that single comment. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:ASPERSIONS, "an editor must not accuse another of misconduct without evidence." I am in no way required to respond to such aspersions, but you engage in sanctionable misconduct by repeating them in a prominent forum. Sandstein 17:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So why did you close this as "nobody wants to keep it" and specifically ignore my Keep? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not required to respond to things you consider aspersions, but if you don't then nobody knows that you consider it an aspersion. I am not accusing you of anything other than incorrectly closing the AfD (evidence presented here and at your talk), not engaging when challenged about it (evidence at your talk and now here). Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but there's absolutely no way this nomination meets "DRV is not" #8 and needs to be procedurally closed. I'm not sure why that user believes you deleted because they wanted to keep, perhaps there's some sort of past conflict there I don't completely understand, but I'm honestly concerned you would suggest a procedural close over that alone. SportingFlyer T·C 17:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with the DRV is not the attack by a third party, as such, but the fact that the person requesting this review included the attack in the review request, thereby repeating and amplifying it. Sandstein 17:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a previous participant, the first time I thought anyone was being attacked was when you specifically mentioned it. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to determine the best merge target. The !votes questioning the existence of the locomotive should be discarded, but not the ones questioning SIGCOV, which still leaves us without a consensus to keep. The issue of discounting early !votes after new information is presented comes up often. I know that Oaktree b, for example, usually watches AfDs in which they participate, and amends their !vote if appropriate. The fact they and Pi.1415926535 didn't address the newly presented sources does not automatically invalidate their !votes. The appellant's own analysis of the sources casts doubt as to them providing SIGCOV, which suggests a merge would be better than a keep.
The suggestion linking the closure to Andy Dingley's !vote is an offensive, baseless aspersion, even if hedged with an "iff true'", and the appellant should strike it out. It is not, however, a sufficient basis for a procedural close of an otherwise legitimate appeal. Owen× ☎ 17:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The early votes didn't "question SIGCOV" they stated that sources don't exist. The existence of sources of any quality automatically invalidate votes based on the lack of sources existing. A closer is supposed to close a discussion based on the arguments presented in the discussion, not their interpretation of what a participant did not say means. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to debate the merits of the case with you while your offensive accusation is still up there. The more you defend this type of behaviour, the more your appeal comes across as bad-faith. Owen× ☎ 20:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that I kept abreast of the discussion after my !vote. While Thryduulf's research was thorough and much appreciated, it's difficult to evaluate the offline sources when no one in the discussion had access to them to confirm whether they do indeed constitute significant coverage, which is why I did not change my !vote. Until an editor is able to obtain those offline sources, not only is that question unresolved, but there's not enough verifiable information to have anything more than a few sentences. I don't object to a relist, but I would suggest that instead the former article be draftified. This would avoid a potentially contentious discussion; more importantly, it would allow Thryduulf and/or other interested editors time to obtain copies of the offline sources. That seems to be the most likely route to having verifiable cited information about the locomotive on Wikipedia, be it as a standalone article or merged into an existing article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The aspersions by Andy Dingley are off-base, and Sandstein has to my knowledge never performed anything in bad faith. I therefore join OwenX above in strongly recommending that Thryduulf strike that part out. I very much appreciate Sandstein stating his rationale, however this is one of the rare occasions where I somewhat disagree with his reasoning and result. The DRV nomination by Thryduulf does bring up weaknesses in the debate itself, particularly that the "delete" votes haven't engaged in discussion of the sources that he offered. Then again, the article was never edited to show what parts of the content could be kept, and the article was still unsourced at the time of the deletion. Deletion may still be the correct outcome, but Thryduulf's sources need to be considered by those holding that opinion. Even if the sourcing is insufficient for a separate article, merging the content with more notable locomotvies derived from this prototype is an alternative. More discussion on this is needed, so I believe a relist is in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I respectfully disagree with User:Sandstein's call for an administrative close due to the personal attack, because I think that the editors here at DRV are being careful to distinguish the content issue from the conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be helpful if the applicant considered striking the final sentence of their statement, so as to allow this DRV discussion to re-focus on the core issue at hand (which is, whether to overturn or not based on the discussion in front of us all). The struck content can be discussed, debated or assessed at another venue at another time. Daniel (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to N/C because there isn't one there. I don't think a relist would be fruitful as there already have been two. It's not a high interest topic, unfortunately. There is no pressing reason this must be deleted, and if someone feels necessary it can be re-nominated down the line. There is no grounds for a procedural or speedy keep, and if there are conduct issues, I suggest those conversations happen at the appropriate venue, which isn't DRV and they're only hampering consensus. Star Mississippi 23:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to N/C. Contrary to the closer, there are only two !votes after Thryduulf shared their sources: one delete, one keep. The one "delete" !vote clearly does not engage with them since it asserts no evidence of the subject's existence and should not have been heavily weighted. But with only two !votes in the 15 days after Thryduulf's sources, it was not clear that a third relist (which is not recommended) would have generated a consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect While it wasn't brought up as an option, redirection would have left the history intact for later improvement. Administrators are free to--and should!--close with policy-compliant alternatives to deletion. In this case, V was met, and N was iffy, which is the ideal situation to make it a redirect with history intact. No consensus and keep would also have been valid closes, because the only post-evidence vote or revisiting of the topic was that from the nominator. Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't possibly see how this could be a delete once sources are provided and the only subsequent is a keep on that basis. Spartaz Humbug! 13:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC There wasn't consensus to delete. There certainly wasn't consensus to keep. Merge to Clayton Equipment Company might be the best outcome, but anything more than a brief mention would be UNDUE. I think this needs more discussion--I don't see a great way forward. But the AfD didn't have consensus for anything. Hobit (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC - the closing statement doesn't seem consistent with the discussion, noting that the third-last "vote" (keep by Thryduulf) was "almost alone in believing that these sources warrant keeping or merging the article". And yet the only two following votes, one was keep (also pointing to other mentions) and the other was delete, based on there being no sources (by User: ADifferentMan) which ignored all the sources listed in the AFD, and didn't respond when challenged on their claim of no sources. Meanwhile the closers statements here seem to be more about a personal attack, that I can't even find. It's closer to keep than delete if we actually apply policy and not just count the votes. A very poor close. Nfitz (talk) 15:14, 9 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Duncan Harrison (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The individual has achieved notoriety as the Head of Content for Crack (magazine) and further as the lead for their creative production offshoot 'CC Co' [1]. Further to this, winning a BBC television program that features on prime-time television is arguably notoriety enough. Finally, the language used within the original deletion reads as possibly being personally motivated. JakeH1108 (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Our inclusion criteria care not a whit about a person's supposed "notoriety", but rather about the extent of their coverage in reliable, independent sources. The passing mention in the link you give is quite insufficient. You don't need DRV's approval to write a new article about this person - particularly for a deletion discussion this old - but if it relies on sources like that one, it'll just get deleted again. —Cryptic 10:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst there is more coverage of the individual, and their role within this creative company found in this article. I thought it pertinent in addressing the historic claim of individual doing nothing else of note. It is arguable that the individuals contributions to the music journalism and creative content industries is of note. Furthermore, merit is deserved for the original coverage of success within the The Speaker (TV series). It makes more sense to decide whether the article in question is notable enough to recover rather than making another which would be subsequently deleted. JakeH1108 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation, noting that this does not require DRV approval since the title is not salted. The article was deleted over a decade ago and at least one source provided by JakeH1108 post-dates the deletion by several years. The history can be requested at WP:REFUND if desired, though I do not know how much value, if any, it would provide (I can not access history as a non-admin). Frank Anchor 12:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation either in article space subject to another AFD, or in draft space with AFC review. The title is not salted. Do the requesters of requests like this think that the title is salted, or that a new article really will be subject to G4? Never mind the answer; just recreate under normal procedures. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete to draft, but require AfC unless a more experienced editor volunteers to work on this. Owen× ☎ 17:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation However, AfC is not, and should almost never be, a requirement. Hobit (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action. Recreation is already allowed. The challenge of the close is frivolous and seems to have been included pro forma so I will ignore it. AfC can not be made non-optional by its very nature. An administrator in his sole discretionary capacity can decree that a certain article must be created via AfC if it's in a contentious topic (unwritten AFAIK, but I have experienced this first-hand), and BLPs are a contentious topic. Since this type of enforcement is conduct-related, and I believe in the primacy of content over conduct, and DRV is a content forum, I'm of a principled view that DRV should not get involved in this sort of enforcement. My recommendation is to speedily close this.—Alalch E. 00:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Until it's written, I'm going to claim an Admin cannot force anyone to use AfC. Doing so for reasons of being inexperienced would be very much against how Wikipedia works. Hobit (talk) 14:59, 6 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Uw-pgame (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Only !vote was for userification. Yet template was deleted. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Endorse or Speedy Endorse - The one vote for userfication said if they become convinced it's not useful, they can G7 it. It was closed as G7. I don't see the history of the deleted template, but assume that the originator tagged it for G7 and the closer honored the G7. Unless I have missed something, this is a frivolous appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call it frivolous. The template was deleted seven minutes after the tag was placed by the author. There was no practical way for Rich to have seen the tag there, so it could appear as though the G7 application was incorrect. Now that this has been cleared up, I'm sure Rich will withdraw this appeal. I really wish we had a permission class that allowed trusted editors like you and Rich to view deleted histories. Owen× ☎ 21:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G7. The template was nominated at TfD on 29 June 2024, and tagged for G7 deletion on 2 July 2024 by the author. They don't want it userfied, and have no use for it anymore. Owen× ☎ 21:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Textbook case of WP:CSD#G7. For anyone that cares about the text, here you go, have fun. -Fastily 04:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse/Withdraw Thanks for the explanation, defence, and the pastebin. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 June 2024

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Salva Marjan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article- First female Formula 4 driver from Kerala India [2] [3], which was not proven in the deletion discussion of removing the article at the time, is now passed WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT, and the discussion at that time ended immediately, and now the woman who is the subject of this article has participated in many notable events as a formula. A female driver. This article should be moved back to the main space, and this request was communicated to a closed editor who participated in the discussion of its deletion. ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. There was a consensus to delete.
    Oppose undeletion. In the AfD it was said that there is false information about a living person (full of wrong information, full of lies) and this was not contested in the AfD, and a page with such problems should not be undeleted. Interested editors can create the article.—Alalch E. 11:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The wrong information may be some technical error from the reference, but she is the first woman racing driver from Kerala India. Participated in notable events [4] [5][6] [7]Spworld2 (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and reject draftification. The two sources cited by the appellant were already included in the deleted version, and were deemed insufficient. I'd normally recommend starting a fresh draft, but if no new sources were found, that would be an exercise in futility. Owen× ☎ 12:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if this is an appeal of the close. Clearly the correct conclusion by the closer. DRV is not AFD round 2. Submission of a draft for review is permitted because the title has not been salted. However, there is no reason to think that submission of a draft is likely to be useful, and there is no reason why the article should be refunded to draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the discussion. I have no problem at this point if a draft is created using new and recent sources. SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse However, the sources don't really assert anything special--she's trained to compete, not that she actually has any sports accomplishments. Charitably, this is WP:TOOSOON, even without the other concerns raised above. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 June 2024

Category:Dominican Republic people of European American descent (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Dominican Republic people of European American descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

That category was being used for Dominicans descended from United States citizens of European descent, aka White Americans (minus Middle Easterners), it wasn't used for "White Dominicans" as claimed by the deletion nominator. Even, there is still a separate category for Dominicans descended from African Americans, aka Black Americans (‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Dominican Republic people of African American descent) as anyone can see it in the parent category Dominican Republic people of American descent since that parent category was subcategorized into different recognized American ethnic groups. This category was deleted based on a misunderstanding, maybe it just needed some clarification in the cat page. ★ Iñaki ★ (Talk page) ★ 02:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (as participant to the discussion) It does not look like a misunderstanding. I noted in the discussion that articles are already in e.g. Category:Dominican Republic people of French descent when it is about someone with French (i.e. European) ancestors. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle what do you think about overturning this CfD and you nominating with the correct rationale, as only you made a relevant comment supporting deletion. Others simply did not get the facts right, so the DRV nominator is right that there was, predominantly, a misunderstanding. —Alalch E. 09:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you discounting my comment so readily? SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I legitimately can not see how you made a relevant comment supporting deletion in the absence of an intelligible rationale coming from you and in the context of the erroneous nomination.—Alalch E. 12:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was nothing erroneous about the nomination as far as I can tell, and any good closer in the category space would understand I'm supporting the arguments which have been made before me. SportingFlyer T·C 17:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguments were made about how the nomination was erroneous in this deletion review already prior to this thread, which arguments were then followed up by more arguments how it was erroneous (at this time: the DRV nominator's statement, my 09:55, 6 June comment, Extraordinary Writ's 19:27, 7 June comment). Marcocapelle clarified his !vote here distinguishing it from the erroneous nomination so that his comment can be understood not to rest on the nominator's objectively incorrect assertions, but you haven't distinguished your comment from the erroneous nomination, and as you, in your !vote, made a reference to White Dominicans, which is a reference to the nominator's incorrect assertions, and there's no other intelligible rationale contained in your comment, your comment can not be seen separately from the erroneous rationale. So, as I said, you did not get the facts right. It doesn't mean that this was a good category, but it means that it wasn't a good CfD. —Alalch E. 12:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The nomination was clearly and objectively erroneous and the comments followed this erroneous reasoning, with the exception of Marcocapelle's comment, but that is only one !vote.
    "European American descent" part in the category name clearly refers to European Americans, citizens of the United States of European descent, to this is a category for articles about Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S. for whom their American ancestors are of European descent, i.e. European Americans. So when the nominator said it seems that this is not intended for Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S. this was absolutely incorrect.
    In spite of this, Marcocapelle reasons that we should not have such a category and that the two layers of descent should be compressed into one, so if someone is Dominican with French American descent, the category should be Category:Dominican Republic people of French descent. This is a fine opinion to have, but consensus did not form around this view, as all of the remaining participation revolved around the erroneous rationale. So there was no consensus to delete. My suggestion would be to renominate with a valid rationale.—Alalch E. 09:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with relisting too, but starting a new discussion with a new nomination would be better. —Alalch E. 23:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were the articles in the category at the time of deletion. I think Alalch is right that Looking at the content of this category, it seems that this is not intended for Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S. simply wasn't correct: the people in question did have white ancestors in the U.S., which is why they were added to the category. The real question is whether 1) residents of the Dominican Republic 2) whose ancestors are of European descent and 3) whose ancestors resided in the U.S. is one intersection too far, as Marcocapelle suggested. I suspect the answer is yes, but the CfD didn't really get into that, and since we have a good-faith request I'd probably just relist for further discussion. (Whatever arguments apply to this category probably also apply to the African-American category mentioned above.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in the same space as Extraordinary Writ. Relist to get a proper consensus, which I would hope will give weight to the overcategorization argument. Stifle (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get rid of it and all similar categories Why should Wikipedia categorize people based on their ancestry? We don't know the ancestry of 99% of BLP subjects. For example, Category:Dominican Republic people of African American descent contains Max Puig who is also in the category Category:Dominican Republic people of Italian descent. But he is also in Dominican Republic people of Catalan descent, Dominican Republic people of Haitian descent, People of Ligurian descent, Dominican Republic people of Dutch descent and Dominican Republic people of Turks and Caicos Islands descent... Who gives a shit? We should remove this information about non-notable people. Do we really want to list everyone's ancestry for thousands of generations until everyone is from Africa? This obsession is unhealthy and insane. We have no reliable sources that give detailed information on the ancestry of anyone alive today, unless perhaps if you are a Habsburger or similar (and even in that case we only know a fragment). It is weird and potentially offensive to label people incorrectly based on flimsy evidence, notoriously unreliable amateur genealogical research and looks. Why do we not require sources for categorization? Just categorize people on their nationality/nationalities if there are reliable sources. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.". Polygnotus (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=1188230539"