Wikipedia:Deletion review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:VFU)
 |
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
|
| Articles |
| Templates and modules |
| Files |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
| Formal review processes |
|---|
|
|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
| Administrators' noticeboard |
| In bot-related matters: |
|
|
| Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
- (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
 | If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
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. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
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 or sockpuppet 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".
Per my (and earlier, Darnios') discussion with Sandstein on his talk page,
- 1) Sandstein incorrectly characterized two RS'es, journal articles from Slayage which is discussed at Buffy studies, as self published sources when the publication was peer-reviewed and indexed at DOAJ at the time in question.
- 2) Sandstein raised an objection to the sources as non-RS when this was not only not brought up in the discussion, but the one editor commenting after they were posted in the deletion discussion had specifically mentioned them implying their suitability to expand the article.
- 3) WP:NEXIST exists for a reason, and this is a textbook case of it: there's now no dispute that this character has RS'ed commentary, so the multiple editors objecting to the current state of the article are not articulating a policy-based reason for deletion. "It sucks since no one has worked on it" has been accepted as a reason for deletion by multiple administrators, when it runs afoul of our WP:NOTPERFECT policy.
- While this is a redirection with history intact, I maintain that it is still not a policy-based outcome. WP:BEFORE is designed to filter out such nominations; three separate participants made the correct, cordial observation that no BEFORE was articulated by the nominator, an editor who made numerous questionable deletion discussions, was counseled by Liz for this, and then vanished rather than address criticism here. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to NC or relist there is reasonable split both in the discussion and at Sandstein's talk that the sourcing was misassessed. NB
did not describe these sources as articles from an academic journal. You merely referred to them a
how they are referred to has no bearing on their standing in RS. I'm not convinced this is a clear keep, but more time to discuss would be a viable outcome. Star Mississippi 02:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC) - Overturn to Relist. This was a sloppy AFD by an inexperienced editor who has since left Wikipedia, and a sloppy DRV by an experienced editor. The appellant states correctly that the nominator failed to perform the before AFD search, but that is more of a conduct issue than a content issue, and DRV is a content forum. Failure to do the before search is a waste of the community's time, but is not a basis for a Speedy Keep. Either No Consensus or Merge or Redirect (with history retained) were valid conclusions by the closer. The appellant repeatedly stated that sources exist, but has not inserted the sources into the article, maybe because they are expecting the community to do the work of inserting the sources. (So both the nominator and the appellant were expecting the community to do their work for them.) The appellant's comments on the closer's talk page appear to be expecting the closer to do the work of researching the sources, which is not the closer's responsibility, and the closer was reasonably annoyed. One more week of discussion may clarify whether the community, which is divided, thinks that the stated existence of sources is sufficient to Keep the article. Or someone might be constructive and add the sources to the article for a Heymann keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I had written an Endorse but Allow Submission of Draft but am persuaded by User:Star Mississippi. This is a difficult DRV because both the AFD and the DRV were sloppy. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- I won't say that assessing sources' reliability is a job solely for an afd's participants, but it's pretty close. It would have been reasonable for a closer to discount sources if they were inarguably unreliable - from open wikis, perhaps, or sources listed as unreliable at WP:RSP - but even then, best practice is to comment on the afd instead and leave an easier job for the next closer to look at it. Introducing a new argument like this in the close, when there's any chance at all that it could've been rebutted had the discussion not been simultaneously ended, isn't on.This, ironically, would've been a more reasonable close, and a harder one to overturn, if it hadn't included an explanation, just the result. —Cryptic 03:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Alisha Parveen (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi can I get the deleted version of this article deleted on 11th November 2023 by @Explicit under G8 in the draftspace. The actress has done multiple significant roles to pass WP:NACTOR Amafanficwriter (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Simaran Kaur (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Simaran played significant roles in Agnifera, Aghori (TV series), Aggar Tum Na Hote, Tose Naina Milaai Ke and is currently playing the main lead in Jamai No. 1. So, I think the consensus of this XFD can be overturned and the article can be restored either to mainspace or draftspace Amafanficwriter (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
- List of health insurance executives in the United States (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I request that the "delete" close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of health insurance executives in the United States be overturned to no consensus for these reasons:
- There was no consensus that the list failed WP:NLIST.
- There was no consensus that the list violated WP:CROSSCAT.
- There was no consensus that "the list potentially puts people in danger" or that "the conspicuous timing of the list appears to at least celebrate this type of violence".
- The closer was WP:INVOLVED through having asked a previous closer to reverse a "no consensus" close. The closer showed a clear preference for deletion when writing, "I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons."
- Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says, "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it." The closer participated in a discussion about the page by arguing with the previous closer that "no consensus" was wrong and advocating for a "delete" close.
Cunard (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Extended comment from DRV nominator:
Sandstein (talk · contribs) closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of health insurance executives in the United States as "no consensus" on 16 December 2024. OwenX (talk · contribs) posted on his talk page that he believed the close should have been "delete". OwenX wrote:
- "It was a tricky AfD to close, but after discarding the canvassed and non-P&G votes, I see a consensus to delete. I found two threads on Reddit canvassing for votes, and I'm sure others exist. What you said about NLIST is true, but I believe the Keep !voters did not adequately refute the issues of NLIST and CROSSCAT, which was nicely summarized by Dclemens1971 there. I'd be willing to re-close (and likely face the inevitable DRV...), if that's okay with you."
- "Two editors with 48 edits to their name, and one with 39 edits, among others with almost no AfD history, all show up suddenly after this and this were posted on Reddit. Note that until the canvassing began, there was a clear consensus to delete, with only one opposing view (from a non-XC editor). I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons. As a minimum, relisting to get a few more non-canvassed views from experienced AfD participants would make sense."
This sequence of events is similar to an admin starting a deletion review arguing that an AfD should be "overturned to delete", the AfD being reopened and relisted by the AfD closer, and then that DRV initiator later closing that AfD as "delete" before the seven-day relist period had finished even though discussion was ongoing. This would violate WP:INVOLVED as the argument for an overturn to delete goes beyond acting "purely in an administrative role".
The closer explained:
I disagree that OwenX's involvement was "purely administrative". When he "assess[ed] the close of the AfD" by telling Sandstein he should have deleted the article, OwenX became WP:INVOLVED. When he wrote,Firstly, with regards to the timing of the close, WP:RELIST clearly tells us that
A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days
. The AfD had been open for 13 days and 9 hours. It was not closed early. Since I'll be spending most of tomorrow (Eastern Time) with my in-laws, I figured I'd take care of this tricky AfD now rather than leave it for another admin to struggle with (and with the DRV that will likely follow). There is no policy that obliges a closer to let the relist clock run out, but if you feel you've been short-changed here, I'd be happy to hear the rebuttal you were planning to post on that AfD, and will reconsider and amend my close, if warranted. That said, unless you bring up an argument that turns everything around, I don't see how your reply to Sirfurboy will change the consensus I read there.Secondly, I did not edit the article nor !vote in the AfD. To quote WP:INVOLVED, my role in this debate was purely administrative. I told Sandstein that I believe he erred in his N/C close, as I did see a rough consensus, after discarding non-P&G-based votes. That is exactly what an uninvolved admin is supposed to do when closing - or assessing the close - of an AfD. I never weighed the article on its merits, and have no opinion about it either way. My sole input here are the arguments expressed in the AfD, as they relate to our policy and guidelines. Sandstein's close was not overturned. He agreed with my assessment of his close, chose to relist it, at which point any admin--including him or me--was welcome to re-close. The situation you describe is materially different, as the DRV participant in your example was a side to the dispute. In this case, there was no dispute.
I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons.
, he became WP:INVOLVED.Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says, "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it." OwenX should have let someone else close the AfD because he initiated a discussion with the previous closer about how the AfD was wrongly closed and the article should have been deleted.
WP:NLIST and WP:CROSSCAT
There was no consensus that the list violated WP:NLIST and WP:CROSSCAT. Numerous established editors argued that the subject met WP:NLIST and did not violate WP:CROSSCAT. Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists says:
I provided sources showing that "highly paid health insurance CEOs in the United States" "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are other sources that do not just discuss the grouping of "highly paid health insurance CEOs in the United States" such as President Obama meeting with them in 2013. This Washington Post article notes, "The White House hosted a group of health insurance executives this afternoon to discuss - you guessed it! - HealthCare.Gov." This Modern Healthcare article notes:One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.
This article also lists the "health insurance executives" who participated in the meeting.Fourteen insurance industry heavyweights were called to the White House Wednesday to advise the Obama administration on how to fix the dysfunctional federal health insurance exchange. ... Kaiser Permanente CEO Bernard Tyson, WellPoint CEO Joseph Swedish, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini and Humana CEO Bruce Broussard were part of the delegation that met with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Deputy Assistant to the President for Health Policy Chris Jennings. ... Other healthcare industry leaders participating in Wednesday's meeting were: Patrick Geraghty, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida; Jay Gellert, president and CEO of Health Net; Patricia Hemingway Hall, president and CEO of Health Care Services Corp.; Daniel Hilferty, president and CEO of Independence Blue Cross; Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans; John Molina, chief financial officer of Molina Healthcare; Michael Neidorff, chairman and CEO of Centene Corp.; James Roosevelt Jr., president and CEO of Tufts Health Plan Foundation; and Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association."
Concerns about revising the list's scope to better reflect the sources should be handled through a discussion on the talk page per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.
"the list potentially puts people in danger" and "the conspicuous timing of the list appears to at least celebrate this type of violence"
There is no consensus for the viewpoint thatthe list potentially puts people in danger
orthe conspicuous timing of the list appears to at least celebrate this type of violence
. These are not policy-based reasons for deletion. This information is widely publicly available and well-sourced to high quality reliable sources, so the list does not violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The list passed Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists before the killing happened. Deletion under this basis violates WP:NOTCENSORED. As one AfD participant wrote:Finally, I think it's dangerous territory to limit the creation of controversial articles based on timing. Was this page made in response to a terrible event? Yes. But at what arbitrary point would we then be allowed to create controversial articles? Who gets to decide what's controversial? Slippery slope. I think the timing of this needs to be taken out of the equation.
- Endorse (involved). AfD is not a vote, but most of the keep voters treated it that way. I counted only four keep voters (including Cunard) who offered policy-based rationales for their !votes. The rest were some mix of WP:PERX, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:WHATABOUTX and WP:ILIKEIT. The canvassed votes distorted the debate and the closer was right to discard them when discerning a consensus. As a result, the appellant’s first two points are incorrect. There was a delete consensus on those grounds. (Re: NLIST, Sirfurboy rebutted Cunard’s sources, and I will add that those sources are all about health insurance CEOs, not the broader category of executives, which was the subject of this list. At no point was NLIST met and no consensus existed there.) Point 3 I agree with the appellant; I and a few delete voters made comments on the propriety of this particular list, but I agree that a preponderance of the delete !voters did not discuss this. However, there was a consensus to delete on NLIST and CROSSCAT. Finally, the question of whether the closer was involved. As the other participant in the discussion on Sandstein’s talk page, I do not think so. OwenX expressed his view about whether a consensus had emerged, not what it should be. I think OwenX’s comments about not “leaving this to stabilize” plainly meant that he believed there was a consensus and that a N/C close when a consensus exists on a contentious subject is not the right approach. That’s an opinion about closing procedure, not a supervote or “involvement” that would preclude a later administrative action. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn This is a tough one to assess for several different reasons, including the length of the DRV, so I copied and pasted the discussion into a word processor, eliminated canvassed votes, and came to my own conclusion before reading the full petition. I completely agree with Cunard here on both counts: that OwenX became involved when they petitioned Sandstein to relist their close, and that the close itself was wrong. I get a no consensus result, after the relist there is clearly no consensus when only looking at votes from long term users, and while I have sometimes disagreed with Cunard about whether the sources they find are good enough at specific AfDs, in this instance their detailed !vote does directly rebut arguments made by delete !votes and more discussion about those sources would be welcome. I think the best result is a relist to give some time to discuss those sources, but an overturn to no consensus would also make sense. SportingFlyer T·C 07:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse (involved). It is right that, per Dclemens1971, most of the keeps were non policy based and should be discarded. The closer correctly assessed the consensus. But I was involved so you would think I would say that. But come on. Someone creates a list of health care executives (not just CEOs. Not just the top 10 best paid. All and any of them) on December 8. Created when companies are removing the names of their executives on safety grounds. Created and grouped into a handy list. OwenX did err on one point: It was not just Dclemens1971 who argued for IAR in addition to the failure of this list to meet NLIST. I argued for that too. IAR is policy, and this is a clear and present danger to the encyclopaedia and to the people on the list. Note that we are not hiding information, because we have the information on individual pages. But we should - indeed we must - hide a handy collated list of healthcare executives created in the wake of, and clearly as a response to, the murder of one of the people on the list. We should hide it because the list is dangerous and we should hide it because it obviously brings the whole project into disrepute. I am sorry, but I sincerely believe everyone arguing to keep this list deserves trouting. Recently there were long discussions at ANI about sites that acted in harmful ways, and how Wikipedians should probably avoid them. Well, taking on board those arguments, if this were overturned and kept, I do not see how I could continue to participate on Wikipedia. And I do not say that lightly. IAR is policy. Now is the time to use it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep deleted for a while. Strong hit list perception. Potential encyclopedic value doesn't justify. This topic should be censored for a while. WP:IAR.—Alalch E. 13:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTCENSORED. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of that. IAR. Still, I'm actually not opposed to undeleting to draft, which you suggested. Drafts aren't indexed. The lack of incoming links and the obscurity of the page relative to what it would be as an article causes me to believe that the hit list problem would be substantially diminished if this were simply a draft for a while. —Alalch E. 01:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Arguing for censorship is immediately objectionable. I think you should instead argue Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People who are relatively unknown, with special attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources. WP:BLP and WP:NOT apply to all namespaces, including draftspace.
- I think the hitlist concern is completely addressed by Wikipedia only published what is published elsewhere in reliable secondary sources (I’m not immediately finding the policy prohibition of primary source sleuthing). SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of that. IAR. Still, I'm actually not opposed to undeleting to draft, which you suggested. Drafts aren't indexed. The lack of incoming links and the obscurity of the page relative to what it would be as an article causes me to believe that the hit list problem would be substantially diminished if this were simply a draft for a while. —Alalch E. 01:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTCENSORED. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Vacate close and allow an uninvolved admin to close the AFD. The closing admin requested the previous no consensus close be undone and the AFD be relisted , thereby making them an involved party (particularly when the new close differed from the original close). I don’t necessarily disagree with the delete outcome, based on hit list and BLP concerns, but there is a clear bias
(albeit likely unintentional)in the current close. Frank Anchor 14:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Why would we vacate the close and re-close for the sake of it if we believe the close was correct? That is just a waste of someone's time. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- While I normally argue against process for the sake of process, there are some exceptions. An involved closer who publicly stated displeasure about a previous close is certainly one of these exceptions. Frank Anchor 17:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Vacate and reclose by an uninvolved editor On balance, it does appear that the closer became involved by questioning the original close. --Enos733 (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment (as closer): I find the whole "INVOLVED" thing ridiculous. When two bureaucrats discuss how to close an RfA, is one of them automatically "INVOLVED"? Are both? What about when several Arbcom members discuss a case before them? Should all but one recuse themselves?
- This particular AfD received the attention of two closing admins, rather than the usual one. I don't see how that makes either "INVOLVED". Reading consensus isn't "involvement". And had my read of consensus--and my exchange with Sandstein--been about changing to a Keep close, I doubt Cunard would be here calling foul. Owen× ☎ 16:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- endorse because it's the right close for the right reasons but I'll be honest it doesn't sit well that the closer advocated for a different close to be undone. For those who are concerned about independence, I'll happily substitute my delete close for the actual closers, which I believe now ticks all the necessary boxes to endorse this close. To be clear I did read every word of the nomination but Jeeze Cunard I was really tempted to skim over it because life isn't that long. Spartaz Humbug! 17:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn and Vacate for close by an uninvolved admin. There are two questions about this close, one of which is often properly answered. The first question is whether the closer was justified in overriding a significant numeric majority, based on strength of arguments and the recognition that AFD is not a vote. The second question is whether the closer was involved and so should have waited for another admin to close. When the numeric vote is 23 Keep and 14 Delete (including the nom), by my count, there should be a strong dominance of strength of Delete arguments, and the closer should be clearly uninvolved. There is a legal principle that it is not enough for justice to be done, because the appearance of justice is also required. Likewise, the closer must not only avoid supervoting, but must be seen as not supervoting. My own opinion is that the closer was supervoting after having asked for a previous close to be relisted; but even if the closer was making an impartial assessment of strength of arguments, it doesn't look impartial. This doesn't look like an uninvolved close, and it looks like a supervote. I respectfully submit that the close doesn't pass the smell test. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- It isn't right to vacate a 'delete' AfD close and leave a running AfD about a redlinked article. There should not be an undeletion for this article, no matter for how short a period. —Alalch E. 01:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Oncorhynchus mykiss to both the closer and the appellant. A 1500-word DRV statement is far too long. If you can't explain the issue concisely, there may not be an issue. The appellant didn't explain the issue concisely, but I saw it and explained it more concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can't help but think that this whole "involved" kerfuffle could have been avoided had I placed a {{closing}} tag on the AfD back on 16 December, while I was working on writing my original closing statement. This would have saved Sandstein the trouble of closing it, prevented me from magically becoming "involved" by sharing my read of consensus with him, saved me the effort of having to amend my original closing statement six days later to account for the views expressed after the relist, and spared all of you from having to read a 1500-word appeal. I mean, chances are I'd still be dragged to DRV by someone who thinks 23 Keeps and 14 Deletes cannot be closed as Delete, even if all but four of the Keeps are canvassed WP:ILIKEIT. But at least we'd be discussing merits, not appearances of a bias that was never there. Owen× ☎ 00:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse, Draftify . I have not got to the bottom of the perception of the closer being INVOLVED. In the AfD I read a consensus that the list was not OK, and did not clearly meet NLIST. However, there were calls for work on the list, and its scope, and the deletion rationales were merely on WP-Notability grounds, which makes the door to draftification sit wide open. User:Cunards sources appear to be new sources, or different sources, to what was in the list (which I haven’t seen), and these sources were criticised by some, and so I think it highly appropriate for the list to be reworked in draftspace, before re-considering whether it meets NLIST. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to NC I don't have an opinion on involved. I do think that there was no consensus to be found in that discussion. And WP:IAR, as the closer mentions, does have a role, but NOTCENSORED is much more on point. And arguing that having a list of CEOs doesn't meet NLIST/WP:N because they tend to be listed in order of pay doesn't really make any sense to me--Cunard's sources put us far over any reasonable bar. Hobit (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- NOTCENSORED is for the BLPs of the executives. The information is not being censored. There is a difference between uncensored information and information that has been collated from uncensored information into a handy dandy list that will be used by people planning copycat attacks. And it wasn't a list of CEOs. It was a list of all executives. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm really surprised at how strongly you are pushing this strangely alarmist "danger" argument. You act like there is a table that specifies their phone numbers, home addresses, and schedules. Nobody is using a list of names on Wikipedia in the way you describe. That is obtuse. Mbdfar (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are right. No one ever searched Wikipedia with anything but the purest of motives. My bad. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- He's not the only one. It isn't obtuse. When a health insurance executive was shot dead for reasons which appeared to the public to be with a certain cause (leading to nicknames for the killer such as the "Claims Adjuster" and images of the suspect as a saint), people were looking for information on other health insurance companies' executives on their websites. Then they noticed that the companies removed it from their websites (notorious, widely publicized, fact), which they did for security reasons. Then someone made a Wikipedia page with this information, basically in response. Or seemingly in response. Just needs to be delayed so that it doesn't seem to be in response to the events. —Alalch E. 18:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- For how long? Mbdfar (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good question. Not very long. Month-ish. —Alalch E. 20:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- For how long? Mbdfar (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm really surprised at how strongly you are pushing this strangely alarmist "danger" argument. You act like there is a table that specifies their phone numbers, home addresses, and schedules. Nobody is using a list of names on Wikipedia in the way you describe. That is obtuse. Mbdfar (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- NOTCENSORED is for the BLPs of the executives. The information is not being censored. There is a difference between uncensored information and information that has been collated from uncensored information into a handy dandy list that will be used by people planning copycat attacks. And it wasn't a list of CEOs. It was a list of all executives. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Closed two days early by a non-administrator, despite the AfD having over 30 votes. While the outcome will still likely be keep, it was an improper closure and didn’t give me time to rethink my vote reading through the keeps. Someone on the talk page noted that one in every five votes was something like merge or delete, and given more time could have closed as no consensus. Isn’t there a policy against non-admins closing potentially controversial AfDs, anyways?— Preceding unsigned comment added by EF5 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse but allow early renomination. I agree that this should have been handled by an admin. Many of the Keep !votes are little more than WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or WP:ILIKEIT, completely ignoring WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR. Additionally, some of the most experienced editors make a compelling case to redirect the page to Killing of Brian Thompson, as per our common practice in such situations. Alas, the outcome wouldn't have been any different had an admin closed it, whether immediately, at the end of the seven days, or after a relisting or two, be it as Keep or as No-consensus. There was simply no consensus to delete or redirect the page, as the appellant here readily admits. Per WP:DRVPURPOSE#6, DRV should not be used
to argue technicalities
, which is what the appellant is doing here. Overturning to No-consensus would achieve nothing. Owen× ☎ 14:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC) - Endorse Sure, it would've been preferable if an admin were to close this AfD, but that would be needless bureaucracy at this point considering the non-admin closer was correct in that the AfD was WP:SNOWing towards Keep. By my count of the bolded !votes, roughly 100 users supported Keeping the article (which includes experienced editors and admins) while 19 users voted some other way (and most of these non-keep !votes came early on in the discussion, not towards the end). As an admin opined at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luigi Mangione, "any outcome other than 'keep' would be highly controversial." Some1 (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse Overwhelming consensus to keep. A separate merge discussion can take place on the subject article’s talk page to see if there is an interest to merge to Killing of Brian Thompson, though I find consensus to do so unlikely at this point (maybe more likely several months from now). While an admin closure would have probably been better, it was clear the AFD would not close with any result other than keep. And GhostofDanGurney is a very experienced AFD contributor. Frank Anchor 16:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus (involved). It's true, "keep" was the overwhelming !vote, but as people always say, AfD is not a vote. Only about 20 of the many, many "keep" !votes articulated an appropriate rationale; most of the rest were WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSINTHENEWS, WP:WHATABOUTX, or simple unexplained !votes. Meanwhile, there were 9 reasoned "delete" !votes and 9 reasoned "redirect" or "merge" !votes. That's a close to even split between those who believed it currently warranted a standalone mainspace page versus those who didn't. I truly think that if a closer had discarded the non-policy-based !votes, N/C would be closer to the actual outcome. (And, in a handy WP:IAR outcome, it's fundamentally the same result as "keep".) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Everything you said is true, Dclemens1971. But as I mentioned above, I can't see anyone objecting to an early renomination, which means an overturn to N/C would be symbolic in nature, without any practical impact. Owen× ☎ 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Fair point; I’d missed your comment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would overturning to no-consensus actually change anything? It's not like the article would actually get deleted. guninvalid (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would allow earlier renomination (not that I expect that to happen), but more importantly it would reinforce the principle that drive-by !votes without rationale are to be discounted when looking for consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I changed my own vote from Endorse to Overturn to No Consensus per your reasoning. Many of the keep votes were not based in policy; it’s important to emphasize that AfDs are not straight votes and that votes without policy based rationales will not be given serious weight. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would allow earlier renomination (not that I expect that to happen), but more importantly it would reinforce the principle that drive-by !votes without rationale are to be discounted when looking for consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Everything you said is true, Dclemens1971. But as I mentioned above, I can't see anyone objecting to an early renomination, which means an overturn to N/C would be symbolic in nature, without any practical impact. Owen× ☎ 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse own close - I felt keep !voters such as Locke Cole, Cullen328, and 50.39.97.171 successfully rebutted much of the concerns from the non-keep-!voters regarding BLPCRIME/PUBLICFIGURE and BLP1E. The main concern that did go unanswered, however, was WP:RECENTISM, so I'm okay with an earlier re-nomination. But a consensus for anything besides keep in that discussion, I felt truly had a "snowball's chance in hell" at this stage. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 17:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*overturn to delete As far as I can see, the many, many people who gave the same rationale for deletion— that a string of passing mentions in business news do not add up to notability— were just ignored, both in other responses and in the counting. And it's hardly a WP:SNOW situation. Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse and disallow (not like it's a hard and fast rule, but still) early nomination. Nothing is going to change in a week or a month. The problem with RECENTISM I've discussed in detail here. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- While there is every reason this could have been a NAC close or a SNOW close, a NAC SNOW close is almost always going to end up here, especially on a well-participated AFD, so GhostOfDanGurney I suggest you not try that in the future. We may even want to make a note or strengthen the existing advice against doing this precisely because this DRV is the predictable (inevitable?) outcome of an NAC SNOW close of a contested AfD. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse I referenced the reasoning on the AfD talk page, so to avoid regurgitating my own words: "As far as I can tell from a rough search, the Keep:Delete ratio is very roughly around 5:1. Granted, the numbers alone do not warrant a snow close, but otherwise, the keep !votes would have to be on average 5x better and more relevant than the delete in order to even consider no consensus here. Granted the keep votes probably are overall much better quality than the deletes, but maybe only by a factor or 2-3x at most, leaving it very much consensus for keep at 3:2 at a minimum. I don't think there is an issue with the snow close personally, but sometimes it's worth elaborating on it, such as even bringing this back around to no conesnsus is not a realistic uphill battle; and otherwise time is on the side of the keep !votes, that of the discussion avalanching towards keep more specifically. There are otherwise certainly enough counter-arguments of BLP1E, CRIME and PERP, even if not as much as there should be in such a discussion." CNC (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse, and do not encourage an earlier than standard WP:RENOM. <involved, !voted “keep”>. There is an abundance of quality sourcing that precludes a reasonable argument to delete. The possibility of the sourcing being a flash in the pan will requires months, minimum, to establish. AfD should not be used to argue “merge and redirect”, use the talk page for that. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Trout for the early NAC. An early close is never justified if it leads to a review. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: [blanked list, retained so that below comments remain relevant]. EF5 03:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Only WP:BLP1E was provided as a reason by the nominator. It's not on editors to address every single argument levied by !voters, especially when such arguments are meritless. You can cast stones at the original nom for not providing any additional reasons to support deletion, but the process was followed and this was in WP:SNOW territory. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, you cite a !vote "Keep Noteworthy" above, which appears to be a claim of WP:N, but you claim your list is
a list of every vote that isn't rooted in policy or is just a claim with no evidence
. Also, considering many other !voters voting keep provided sources and evidence, why do you suppose everyone else should too? Or are you looking for copy-paste !votes? Seriously, get out of here with this. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC) - Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF. EF5 19:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors.
Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- Oh, please. Keep the personal attacks to yourself. EF5 19:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- You first? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV. EF5 21:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- You first? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, please. Keep the personal attacks to yourself. EF5 19:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors.
- What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF. EF5 19:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse (involved) with an Oncorhynchus mykiss to the non-admin closer. This was the only possible close, but it wasn't necessary for the non-admin to close the AFD early. The close should have known that the close would result in this DRV, and this DRV could have been avoided by not doing a non-admin snow close of a contentious topic. Sometimes a closer cannot avoid being taken to DRV, but a non-admin can avoid being taken to DRV for a snow close by leaving it to an admin. I didn't vote in the AFD, but I voted Keep in the MFD, and said that an article should be kept, and would have voted Keep in the AFD if I had participated. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- While I expected this AFD to close as Keep or No consensus, it is not what I would define as an appropriate SNOWCLOSE as there were plenty of editors who argued to Delete or Merge/Redirect. Typically, SNOW closes are almost unanimous and this one wasn't unanimous. I think this close happened because an AFD close was requested at WP:AN and I think the closer was responding to that brief discussion.
- I don't think this is worth overturning but I do think the NAC closer should get a reminder that they should have probably have left this to a more experienced closer who might have left a more explanatory closure statement. Having seen this AFD earlier, I expected it to wind up at DRV no matter what the close was because it was a controversial subject and the discussion was closed early. Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse (involved) as I feel there was a consensus to keep. The closer however, should be admonished per Liz's comment above. This definitely wasn't a "Snow Keep"- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. There was a snowball's chance in hell of the deletion proposal being accepted, so there was no need to run it through the entire process. Correct application of WP:NOTBURO and an appropriate application of WP:IAR, both by invoking WP:SNOW, and it doesn't matter that the editor was a non-admin. The discussion was contentious but the outcome was obvious and it can't seriously be stated the keep outcome is now controversial (even the starter of this DRV does not claim this much), the closer is an experienced editor and has not expressed a lack of impartiality or similar (to my knowledge), and the keep result did not require action by an administrator.—Alalch E. 15:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to No Consensus (involved) This AfD should have been closed by an admin after the full seven day with a reasonable analysis of how they reached the implemented outcome; SNOW NACing this was incredibly inappropriate. I initially recommended overturning the closure and allowing an uninvolved admin to make a fresh decision. However, at the end of the day, this was either going to be closed as Keep or No Consensus. The closer has definitely earned a good trouting, but I don’t believe that the outcome reached (specifically, the article staying up) was substantively wrong. (I’m recommending Overturn to No Consensus rather than a standard Endorse per Jclemens‘s reasoning and my concern that many of the keep votes were not based in policy).Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be a good thing to overturn to 'no consensus' when there was a consensus. —Alalch E. 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
my concern that many of the keep votes were not based in policy
Many keep !voters routinely mentioned either notability (a clear and direct appeal to WP:N), while many others noted the significant media coverage in reliable sources (an appeal to WP:SIGCOV specifically and WP:GNG indirectly). As to the plain "keep" !votes with little or nothing added, I'd argue that we should abide by WP:AGF: these editors probably saw compelling arguments made earlier in the discussion and felt no need to add to what were already good arguments to keep. The first truly naked "keep" vote didn't occur until after ~25 other !votes, a majority of which were already "keep" and had each provided rationales. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- Just to be absolutely clear, I did not intend for my comments to be taken as a personal attack against any voters in the AfD. Rather, I think that the delete side had some very strong BLP related arguments while some on the keep side put forth relatively weak arguments (for the record, I was a Keep vote). While the keeps had a clear numerical advantage, I think this was a lot closer once the strength of the voters’ arguments is factored in. (FYI, I’m probably going to rest my argument here. It looks like there’s growing consensus for a standard endorse; I think endorsing is a perfectly acceptable outcome). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. The close was correct on the merits. There was not a snowballs chance in hell of a delete consensus coming out of that discussion. Much better to revaluate in six to nine months and discuss the possibility of a merge/redirect at that time. On the other hand, any early close of such a contentions discussion was likely to end up at DRV and an early NAC almost certain to. Any close almost certain to be disputed in good faith is a poor candidate for a NAC. So a minnow to "Ghost of Dan Gurney" for a mistake in that regard. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse If it's snowing outside, you need to be allowed to say it's snowing. I do agree this should not have been a NAC, but I don't think it quite rises to a level of a BADNAC which needs to be overturned. SportingFlyer T·C 07:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse (involved). There were multiple policy based argumements to keep. Clearly, we want new editors to articulate a policy based rationale and should encourage that in various friendly ways. But the recommendations of new editors who are, in effect, echoing the !votes of more experienced editors should not be discounted entirely. They were both persuaded and motivated to !vote. What I see is a number of good faith newbies who noticed that a high visibility article was up for deletion and decided to help out by chiming in. That ought to count for something.
- I agree that this discussion should have been closed by an administrator after seven full days, but that is nowhere near a big enough problem to overturn the close. Cullen328 (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse A) Taking administrative shortcuts in the name of expediting things up is self-defeating. B) This was a clear SNOW close--there wasn't a snowball's chance this was getting closed in any other way. Basically: A NAC in such a situation was within the rules, but unwise because of the DRV that was sure to follow. So the closer was right on the rules and wrong on common sense/experience. Learn from this. Hobit (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Even after the deletion discussion's consensus to delete, page has not yet been deleted. Forgive me if this isn't the correct place to post such requests TNM101 (chat) 10:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I think the AfD was closed erroneously. The reason given was Initially, with only a few reliable sources available, several editors voted in favor of delete. [1] After a week of discussion, the AfD for 15.ai was relisted for further discussion, and I did my due diligence to do some research to find additional sources that could be used for the article. On December 9, I made an edit displaying the research that I did over the weekend, finding several more reliable sources that would be viable to use to establish GNG, such as sources from United Daily News and a newsletter article from an IEEE-published author. [2]. Ever since that edit, all of the subsequent votes have either been Keep votes or previous Delete votes being stricken. I'm confused by how the AfD was ultimately closed as Delete when it looked like the consensus was heading towards a Keep after the new sources were found. Specifically, after the new sources were found, Schützenpanzer changed their vote from Weak Keep to Keep, JarJarInks voted Keep, Aaron Liu expressed his Keep vote (but didn't bold it), and Sirfurboy struck his delete vote after a discussion with him regarding the newly found sources. Importantly, not a single editor expressed a delete vote after the new sources were found and the AUTOMATON source was considered to be reliable, and the editor who submitted the AfD has closed their account. Thank you for your time. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 18:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Edit: I'm also willing to put in the work to use the new citations in a new version of the article, or at least please reconsider relisting the discussion so that a better consensus of the new sources can be found. After taking a look at the other Deletion reviews, for convenience I've compiled some sources that are candidates to demonstrate reliability and significant coverage as discussed in the AfD (the first three are the new ones): [3] [4] [5][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ([12] [13] the SIGCOV of these two were debated, but I feel like they're still relevant to the discussion) GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 19:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is the 2nd time an AfD has been tempered by off-site canvassing. (First AfD) I would have paused even to close this 2nd AfD. I would have thrown any input from canvassed parties into the trash. How exactly were E+C editors weighted here, even if they were self-interested parties? The refs provided skimmed the surface for anyone who provided a thorough source assessment table. Either a better look at the participants is needed or the no consensus result should be overturned. – The Grid (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) – The Grid (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This deletion discussion had minimal participation and the nomination did not fully follow the procedures in WP:BEFORE; there are articles in the Wall Street Journal, Puget Sound Business Journal, and Chicago Tribune with significant coverage, not to mention a good number of Seattle Times articles in local archives. I believe this was a premature deletion and the article could be saved and improved. SounderBruce 00:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Controversy over Baidu (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am a course instructor supervising students writing and translating articles here for 10+ years and this is the first time I've seen a properly translated article (with references, interlanguage links, etc.) subject to speedy deletion (under strange rationale - G10, attack page). The page in question was just a translation of criticism of Chinese company Baidu from Chinese Wikipedia (zh:对百度的争议 - wikidata:Q10956638), perfectly normal for large companies - see Category:Criticisms of companies and articles like Criticism of Google or Criticism of Starbucks. It is simply the main article for the subsection present in our article at Baidu#Controversies. Now, the name should probably be Criticism of Baidu rather Controversy over Baidu (although we also have MSNBC controversies or Controversies of Nestlé - some name standardization of entries in this category may be in order...), but there is no good reason to speedy this. If someone dislikes the page, WP:AFD could be used, but I am pretty certain the article would be kept, per numerous precedents (dozens of articles in criticism of companies category). With all due respect, whoever speedy tagged it and deleted it needs a WP:TROUT and a refresher of policies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
I would like to know if the page can be reinstated as draft since new sources presented in the discussion were ignored. Svartner (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse own close Just so we're on the same page here: This process is for contesting the closers' reading of the consensus of the discussion. It is not the closers responsibility to evaluate sources, but to gauge consensus, which I believe I did.
- Your remark was there for a week without being replied to, so seemingly it was not found to be compelling by the other particpants.
- Of the other comments in favor of keeping it, one made arguments not based in policy, one baldly stated that better sources exist and did not follow up on that when asked to, and one was self-identified as "weak".
- Commenters supporting deleting or redirecting made more valid, policy-based arguments than those favoring keeping it, so deleting and redirecting seemed the most reasonable course of action. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- New sources were presented that were simply ignored. If the page was just redirected it could be improved in the future, but the deletion made no sense at all. And in this case, I'm just asking to make it a draft since I think it's possible to work on it in the coming months. It's quite reasonable. Svartner (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, you aren't asking that, as I tried to explain. You are asking to overturn the close. If you wanted it restored as a draft so you could work on it, you could've just asked me to do that for without opening a DRV and I would've done it, and none of this would be necessary. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- New sources were presented that were simply ignored. If the page was just redirected it could be improved in the future, but the deletion made no sense at all. And in this case, I'm just asking to make it a draft since I think it's possible to work on it in the coming months. It's quite reasonable. Svartner (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- The AfD which runs a long time and where consensus is delete, but the very last vote is a keep !vote with sources, is always a bit difficult. At the same time there was also plenty of time to evaluate these sources, and no one bothered to. I think the close was generally fine, but the question is really whether the sources show that the consensus that GNG was not met was incorrect. These are foreign language searches about a topic I'm completely unfamiliar with, and one is paywalled, but I am not convinced this is a clear keep based on the three sources in the AfD. If it were up to me alone I'd endorse the close and draftify the page to allow more sources to be added, but I'm sure there will be others here more confident in their source analysis. SportingFlyer T·C 02:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- While this can be taken to a tendentious extreme, yes, a solid posting of additional sources invalidates all prior !votes on a notability basis, until and unless those editors come back to reiterate their !votes. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily agree with that - plenty of times at AfD you will see someone posting sources which don't actually meet GNG, and then you'd rely on the closer to make a source analysis, which could potentially lead to supervotes. SportingFlyer T·C 07:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hence my saying solid posting, which I'm not saying this was. Some editors, Cunard and Daranios being two that come to my mind, will post what amounts to an annotated bibliography, including quotes and detailed rationales. In this case, these were untranslated bare links--a world of difference. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the distinction you describe does exist. There was no depth to the final comments made by the appellant here, "here's some stuff I found" is not that compelling if you don't explain more clearly what it is. That fancy tool that generates an analysis table is pretty nice for this as well. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hence my saying solid posting, which I'm not saying this was. Some editors, Cunard and Daranios being two that come to my mind, will post what amounts to an annotated bibliography, including quotes and detailed rationales. In this case, these were untranslated bare links--a world of difference. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily agree with that - plenty of times at AfD you will see someone posting sources which don't actually meet GNG, and then you'd rely on the closer to make a source analysis, which could potentially lead to supervotes. SportingFlyer T·C 07:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- While this can be taken to a tendentious extreme, yes, a solid posting of additional sources invalidates all prior !votes on a notability basis, until and unless those editors come back to reiterate their !votes. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse the close, if this is an appeal of the close. The new sources were presented after two relists, and the closer had no obligation to relist a third time. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Restore to Draft and allow review of draft. When the consensus at an AFD is Redirect, the article is usually Blanked and Redirected, so that the deleted article remains in the history. In this case, it was Deleted and Redirected. Is there a specific reason why it was deleted this time? I don't think that the appellant is making an unreasonable request to have the article restored in draft. They will be well advised to expand the article to summarize what the additional sources say. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Restore history to redirect, which would allow any user to create a draft from the prior version. The redirect close was correct, but I see no reason to have deleted the history as a blank and redirect would have had the same effect. None of the AFD participants made any objection to retaining page history (which is very common in a redirect and, in my opinion, the greatest benefit to having a redirect). Frank Anchor 05:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- We should really get rid of the delete-and-then-redirect as a common practice. It's great for copyvio, attack pages, or other abuse, but for run-of-the mill NN content, it's both overkill AND makes it more difficult for someone to come along and repair the deficiency later. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to NC. Or relist. There's no good reason that after a relist, when the only editor commenting after the relist posts sources and opines keep, an admin should find a consensus to delete. Admins don't all have to defer to each other's relists, but that doesn't pass a sniff test. I've commented on other issues above, but that's the heart of the policy-based reason I find the close problematic. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse close which is consistent with the discussion. If we're going to raise issues not raised in the deletion discussion, then I will point out that this article and its companions are magnets for cross-wiki LTA. Simple wikipedia article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, Spanish article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, French article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, Afrikaans article created by a globally-locked sock puppet, etc. etc. All this talk about needing the page history: it's here, where it's been since the last deletion discussion. The content is insignificantly different from all the other times this content has been blanked, restored, deleted, recreated, redirected, and argued over. DrKay (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to Redirect without history deletion. There was no valid reason to delete the history, and indeed, none of the Redirect !voters suggested it. The Redirect !votes were for an alternative to deletion, not for a grave marker. If any revisions contain copyvio or attacks, those specific revs can be deleted. Owen× ☎ 11:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I felt the decision was spilt between those calling for redirecting and those calling for deletion, which is why I made the decision I did. It may not be what every other admin would have done in this case but I believe it was within the realm of admin discretion when determining consensus. I also really don't think using hyperbole like "grave marker" is helpful, or even makes sense in the case of a redirect, which is a more like a signpost if you want to use metaphors. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Thanks to User:DrKay for providing a link to the deleted content. It seems that the deletion of the history by the closer didn't delete the history because there are two or more versions of the article with different linguistic forms of a preposition, a form of gaming a title. The appellant can copy the deleted article to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to Redirect without history deletion While a close of redirect was within the discretion of the closer, there was no reason given during the discussion that suggested the history was problematic. --Enos733 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse but restore to draft (or restore the history under the redirect, no preference). JSS' close was correct, but no reason not to allow requestor to try and improve this in draft space. That's why I lean that way vs. history restoration but either way fine. Star Mississippi 01:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to NC, or at any rate restore history, since there was plainly no support for the unusual step of delete-and-redirect. I am troubled by the closer's statement above that a lack of replies to a !vote indicates that the other participants did not find it persuasive. By that standard none of the delete !votes were persuasive either -- indeed even less so, since more time had passed. In this way and others, it seems clear that the closer took it upon themselves to pick away at the rationales for keeping without applying any comparable scrutiny, or apparently any scrutiny at all, to the rationales for deletion. Indeed the closer does not appear even to have weighed the rather obvious problem that the AFD nom failed to make a valid argument for deletion in the first place (improperly basing the claim of non-notability only on sources present in the article).But setting all those quibbles aside, even by the most favorable application of WP:DETCON, there was simply no consensus -- that is, reading the AFD discussion as favorably as possible to the close, the best that can be said is that both sides raised plausible arguments that were neither conclusively refuted nor found persuasive by their opponents. Looking at Svartner's sources I don't see anything that would justify rejecting them out of hand. (I can imagine that people with deeper knowledge of the subject matter might find reasons to do so, e.g. maybe these particular outlets are unreliable in this area, but nobody suggested that in the AFD.) IMO the best argument for deletion is the one raised above, that these articles are part of a larger program of promotional abuse, but that is not an argument that was raised in the discussion or considered in the close. -- Visviva (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, I did not reject those sources out of hand. I didn't even look at them. That's not the closers job, I was there to read consensus, not sources. And the very first comment after the nomination does in fact mention the broader issues with this subject area, although it didn't seem to gain much traction. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 04:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Restore to draft, or (no objection to) restore history under redirect. We struggle with situations where a discussion sputters, then someone brings up potential sources, and .... crickets (i.e., silence). Did others evaluate the new sources and find them lacking? Or no one looked at them (since foreign language, or people were just tired of this discussion?). Layer on a topic area with history on wp, and I don't fault any decisions made. But sending to draft, as requested by appellant here, seems a sensible way forward. BTW, I agree with the commentary above that closers should be careful about delete-then-redirect closes. A preponderance of !votes arguing for either delete or redirect should not imply delete-and-redirect is necessarily the consensus outcome; it's quite possible many of the delete !votes merely mean "should not be a standalone article" and would not object to a redirect instead, exactly as the redirect !voters are saying. BTW, I know nothing about independence of various sources in Portuguese, but the sources provided at the end of the AFD seem not unreasonable. Martinp (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn I think NC and redirect were both valid outcomes based on the discussion. This was not. Hobit (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to re-iterate what I've stated above, I was not asked to restore it as a draft before this drv was opened. If I had I would've done so. I'm pretty much always willing to do that, as are most admins, but drv shouldn't be the method for asking for it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the page should be restored to draft. The three sources presented by the appellant are weak, and likely won't survive AfC or a second AfD anyway. Your Redirect close was correct. It's the history deletion I and others here find questionable. Self-revert that deletion, and we can probably close this DRV with a broad endorsement. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not that I necessarily disagree but I'd rather let an uninvolved admin close in the usual manner. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the page should be restored to draft. The three sources presented by the appellant are weak, and likely won't survive AfC or a second AfD anyway. Your Redirect close was correct. It's the history deletion I and others here find questionable. Self-revert that deletion, and we can probably close this DRV with a broad endorsement. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. It was not unreasonable to find a rough consensus to delete, and the specific "delete and redirect" outcome is just "delete" with the deleting admin noting that they are also creating a redirect (which anyone else could do). "Delete and redirect" may look unusual, but that does not matter when it's really just a "delete" close. The real "redirect" outcome as an ATD was certainly an option but it was not a requirement; I particularly lean toward not seeing it as a requirement when a BLP is concerned, and in the AfD it was said that the content is weak due to poor sourcing and that there is recycled information from articles about other people, which really makes for something I'm fine not using an ATD on. The "new sources" are bad and I don't like the idea of a draft, as no amount of drafting can make a non-notable topic notable. Still, restore to draft, per the usual practice in this situation.—Alalch E. 02:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Despite DrKay's disturbing revelations about this subject on other wikis, no serious issues have been raised about this article in this discussion yet, so deleting and redirecting was highly inappropriate. I don't particularly care what happens in this case but I am shocked to hear from JSS that they deleted and redirected simply because a few people !voted delete and a few people !voted redirect. Unless a CSD applies, delete and redirect is never a valid alternative to deletion. Never! Toadspike [Talk] 21:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- My first choice would be to relist (even though third relists are frowned upon) and ping the previous !voters; I can't see a consensus to delete when unrebutted sources are on the table, but I'm not sure no consensus would be a fair closure in this situation either. At a minimum, though, overturn to redirect—deleting the history when no one has offered a reason why is neither policy-based nor a good idea. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. Deleting and redirecting is not unheard of, and especially for regular targets of aristocracy fans simple redirection just makes it easier for LTA accounts to recreate the article in the future while avoiding NPP. JoelleJay (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- For the benefit of any would-be spammers reading, articles created from redirects do go back into the NPP queue—there's no getting around it quite that easily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. It is not the closer's fault that possibly relevant sources were offered too late in the discussion to sway consensus. The two other "keep" opinions offered no policy-based arguments, and none of the "redirect" opinions makes an argument for why the history should be retained. The "delete and redirect" closure therefore reflected rough consensus in the discussion. As ever, all are free to recreate the article if proper GNG-compliant sources are found. Sandstein 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is not the job of the redirect voters to explain why the history should be retained, as that is standard practice for a redirect. However, as several people brought up already in the DRV, no voter brought up a valid reason to not retain the article history. Frank Anchor 18:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse redirect closure but restore history behind redirect to allow for further potential improvements, feels like the best way forward here. Alternatively, happy with restoring to draft too (this could theoretically be done by anyone if restoring history behind redirect is the outcome). Nothing wrong with the original close, but happy to give a chance for improvements to the article, to better meet our P&G's. Daniel (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
2024 Duki coal mine attack (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Firstly, AfD is not the right forum for MERGE or REDIRECT discussion. Let me also remind that it's WP:NOTAVOTE. Secondly, the over a dozen references within the article itself assert notability while fulfilling and meeting the WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:NCRIME criteria of WP:NEVENT which reads:
Thirdly, at the expense of being called out for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'll still say that having articles on street brawl and stabbing incidents in the West but not one on a terrorist incident that occurred outside of an active warzone in the Global South is a pure example of WP:GEOBIAS. — Mister Banker (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |