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.
if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be
renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
(This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per
this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
to point out
other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
to challenge an article's deletion via the
proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been
protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise
prohibited content will not be restored.
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.
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:
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 July 21}}</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 21}}</noinclude>
If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 July 21|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:
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.)
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".
The page was deleted after the individual who requested the deletion mutilated the page by removing key links and information on the notability of the subject and in the process skewing the page to look bad.
The page was created around 2008 because of the notability of the individual in many respects including:-
1. Earliest Nigerian blogger since 1997 and created the website Dawodu.com. There are more than 50 Wikipedia articles that reference this website to show its significance in contributing to discussion on Nigeria’s socio-economic, political and historical issues.
2. He was one of the pioneer editors of the Knowledge Now (
https://now.aapmr.org), a repository of articles in physical medicine and rehabilitation in the world hosted by the American Academy of Physical Medicine (AAPMR)and also pioneer author of articles on this platform. Inquiries can be made to AAPMR through their website AAPMR.org.
3. He was one of the pioneer authors of various articles on Emedicine that later became part of MEDSCAPE (MEDSCAPE.com) which is the number one website of medical articles in the world and that was as far back as 1998. His article on spinal cord injury and causa equina on MEDSCAPE was a reference for Emergency Room doctors in managing such conditions.
Some of these were fully discussed in the past at a previous attempt to delete the site.
The question that the editor that requested deletion needs to answer is why did he delete relevant references and mitigated the article before requesting the deletion of the article. One can see this as evidence of possible malice.
I do hope that this will be reviewed as soon as possible and allow the discussion to continue for another week to enable more people participate. Attempts were made by me behind the scene to ensure that the person that requested deletion will consider the above and withdraw the request. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ckanopueme (
talk •
contribs)
13:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If "and candidate for Masters in Global Healthcare Leadership from
University of OxfordReuben College, Oxford" is such a critical part of the article so as to constitute "key links and information" and removing it is "mutilat[ion]" and "skews the page to look bad", then this never should have lasted this long. Endorse. —
Cryptic13:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
More than that was deleted. In the process of the deletion, references were mismatched to create a false narrative. May be an error on his part or may be with some intent. Ck Anopueme
Ckanopueme (
talk)
18:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment for information by someone who was involved in the AfD: all the person who nominated for AfD did to the article was a) some recategorizing b) fixing some references c) the removal mentioned above. —
Alien333 (
what I did &
why I did it wrong)
17:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Kindly review the Links below to buttress some of I have stated on nobility of the subject of this articles.
Also a search through Wikipedia will point to many articles that referenced the Dawodu.com website making it a sources of resources on Wikipedia (that confers advantage to Wikipedia). It is also a good idea to look at time frame ie since 1997 as most of things pioneered then may look normal now but not on 1997 to 2009 when the article was first created.
Article from Reuben College, University of London.
The request or for deletion took a step to delete all association to Oxford in the article before mutilating references. This gives a clue of this is a coordinated effort by some individuals from Oxford.
His connection to PHC at Oxford University with his Reuben college email.
I do hope all these will be taken into consideration and more editors can see the facts for further discussions as a week did not give enough notice to get more people to discuss this.
Clear as day endorse for me, consensus from the debate is clear and the above nomination rationale is lacking substance. The references to debates from over a decade ago as a reason to overturn is
wildly irrelevant. None of the three numbered points in this debate offer any kind of reasonable argument of notability, something consensus at the AfD agrees with. The description of the editing behaviours at the article is erroneous to the point of being misleading.
Daniel (
talk)
17:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Response
Kindly review the Links below to buttress some of I have stated on nobility of the subject of this articles.
Also a search through Wikipedia will point to many articles that referenced the Dawodu.com website making it a sources of resources on Wikipedia (that confers advantage to Wikipedia). It is also a good idea to look at time frame ie since 1997 as most of things pioneered then may look normal now but not on 1997 to 2009 when the article was first created.
Article from Reuben College, University of London.
The request or for deletion took a step to delete all association to Oxford in the article before mutilating references. This gives a clue of this is a coordinated effort by some individuals from Oxford.
His connection to PHC at Oxford University with his Reuben college email.
I do hope all these will be taken into consideration and more editors can see the facts for further discussions as a week did not give enough notice to get more people to discuss this.
Thanks.
Chike
———————————————————————-
I went through some of the comments during deletion which some others who may be interested did not have a chance to review. Some of those comments have been addressed in my earlier postings. One of the comments was on fellowship being solely on paying membership fee which is not true.
To be a fellow of AAPMR (FAAPMR), the individual needs to be board certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation ie passed the specialty board examination first.
A fellow of American Academy of Neuroelectrodiagnostic Medicine is required to also pass the board examination before being co sidères as FAANEM. The above are not different from the FRCS and FRCP in the UK.
The above lists very stringent criteria to become a fellow of the British Computer Society (FBCS) which is the highest level of membership in any IT field in the entire world. Becoming a fellow is not a mere payment of membership fee
Membership of the Royal College of Aurgeons of Edinburgh requires passing a rigorous examination.
The above in addition for he fact that the subject is one of two people in the world who are physicians, attorneys and clinical Informaticians at intersection of medicine, law and IT points to his notability and the reason why I created the stub for him.
As an editor, I don't think he needs Wikipedia to tout who he is as his presence in the World Wide Web is notable on many other platforms especially for his work on his blog(Dawodu.com), on MEDSCAPE and on AAPMR's Knowledge Now, the later two being the global leader on articles in medicine and in rehabilitation medicine respectively.
I think all these facts point on a need for an extensive review and also ensuring that the act of defacing a stub to hide nobility of the person in the article and then ask for deletion should never be allowed or tolerated. This act beings very one including Wikipedia into disrepute.
Joe Lonsdale – Speedy close with permission to restore/recreate as desired. Combination of factors having changed (2024 sourcing) and sock farms and an admin with a desire to address the issues raised, which they have access and permission to.
StarMississippi01:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The page was deleted in 2021 with only two non-sockfarm !votes — one from an editor who wanted to avoid rewarding apparent UPE, and one from an editor who felt the coverage was trivial. I don't think the deletion was unreasonable given the !votes, nor do I think the trivial coverage concern was unwarranted given that some editors had stuffed the page full of ~60 references that were largely trivial. However, I think some of the old sources combined with substantial available new sourcing justify undeletion, and I'm happy to do the cleanup necessary after the page is restored.
Lonsdale is notable as a founder of
Palantir and later
OpenGov and
University of Austin. He is also among a group of politically active tech financiers who are pretty regularly covered in the news (most recently in a spate of coverage about a new super PAC for which he is evidently helping to fundraise — see
NYT, etc.)
GorillaWarfare (she/her •
talk)
20:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Recreate, or undelete it yourself if there's anything you find useful in the deleted history. You are experienced and trustworthy enough that you don't need to go through a draft, which is what we normally prescribe in such cases.
Owen×☎21:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
DRV unneeded Any admin is trusted to undelete any article, to draft, sandbox, or straight to mainspace when they see that a past consensus no longer applies, and demonstrate that, through their editing, to the rest of us. Really, you've got the tools for a reason: go improve the encyclopedia and don't stop here to ask permission.
Jclemens (
talk)
05:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No action. Agree with Jclemens. Undelete when ready to make the edits that prove the case. G4 won't apply if the result isn't a sufficiently identical copy.—
Alalch E.14:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I do think it wise to bring this to DRV first before doing the undelete. But in any case, yeah, go for it, just avoid being a G4.
Hobit (
talk)
17:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I don't see the need or value for bringing things like this to DRV, because I don't see why it should be undeleted. If a requester doesn't know how to write a new article from scratch and has to have it refunded, then they aren't an experienced editor. The requester in this case is an experienced editor and admin and does know how to write a new article from scratch, subject to AFD. Oh, okay. The undelete isn't an undelete, but a view deleted article to verify that the new scratch-written article isn't a clone of the deleted article. And I have occasionally asked for a deleted article to be refunded so that I could compare a draft against it, and the usual result is that the admin tells me that the draft is a clone of the deleted article, so the draft gets rejected.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
18:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Restore per all votes above, either as a draft or directly into mainspace depending on how quickly GorillaWarfare wishes to update the page to include new information. I commend GorillaWarfare for seeking clarification on this topic via deletion review rather than unilaterally restoring the article. Some users could consider that an abuse of administrative privileges (I do not). FrankAnchor20:31, 18 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.
Probably shouldn't be history-merged due to the parallel histories from February - April 2008, but I can't imagine why it shouldn't be restored and redirected. —
Cryptic12:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The current version is quite similar to the old version and would have been based off it, so it is required for attribution. So I support some kind of restore.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
13:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It was an out-of-process deletion. There’s no good reason to have it deleted. If attribution is required, that’s another reason to undelete. Neutral on undelete and redirect vs history merge.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
14:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree this makes sense. While I appreciate the referral here, I don't think that was necessary... unless you wanted us to publicly agree that our consent for such an undeletion wasn't necessary.
Jclemens (
talk)
15:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy undelete and redirect. This is uncontroversial. If it's undeleted and redirected it can still be history merged, and that does not have to be decided in a DRV.—
Alalch E.14:54, 18 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.
Global company with more than 10000 employees. Innumerable credible inline news sources and books . New articles with new sources , should not be deleted due to old article as innumerable credible sources have emerged
121.242.91.74 (
talk)
06:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy Close and semi-salt all relevant draftspace titles so that only registered users can create drafts in the future. Enough is enough. Given the history, I'm not even wanting to ask to see the deleted material before assuming that G11 is once again valid.
Jclemens (
talk)
07:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, it doesn't mention the company's "economic journey", but it has most of the other hallmarks. In particular, most of the external links in the absurd refbombing are showing up as already-visited to me (though I don't remember taking more than a cursory look in previous visits to DRV);
this is typical of the new ones.The sad thing is, the claims in the draft are such that I'd expect there to be usable sources on it somewhere, but you'd have to be daft to try looking for it among all the shallow promotion they've paid for.I'll try to work out a regex less gameable than the one I
tested in November, but something's changed such that these queries, which used to complete in minutes, have been running for more than an hour now and show no signs of stopping. For just an autoconfirmed+ blacklisting, it seems like wasted effort. —
Cryptic13:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
(And, as usual, it completed almost immediately after I complained that it wasn't going to complete. The public version at
quarry:query/84908 should eventually get populated, maybe quickly if it cached well, maybe not. There were a couple new deletions since the November try, no new false positives, and nothing that would be caught by the wider regex that wouldn't have been by the old.) —
Cryptic13:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy close, endorse and salt all relevant titles per Jclemens above. I would do this myself but I closed the last DRV so, with no pressing need to intervene, would rather another administrator do it. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
08:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Do not SALT. SALTing in draftspace encourages the game of cat and mouse with using variations on the title. Draftspace exists to attract and contain unworthy content, let it serve its purpose. It’s easier to keep deleting the same title than variations on the title.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
09:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse and list at
WP:DEEPER (a recommendation from the previous DRV). I feel like blacklisting is going to be robust enough of a solution to figure as a net postive.—
Alalch E.15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A non-admin closure was performed after just two days on grounds of
WP:SNOW, which is disallowed under
WP:NACAFD. While I don't disagree with the outcome, there were several "redirect" !voters in the discussion who (a) might have changed their !votes on their own premise (once opinion polls began to be available) or (b) perhaps had reasons to maintain their positions during the remaining discussion period, who knows. Given the procedural error, I propose re-opening the discussion and allowing an admin to interpret whether a SNOW closure is appropriate.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
12:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I too disagreed with the SNOW closure. In addition to the points raised above, there seemed to have been some manipulation of the keep !votes with two new members joining and immediately !voting in the AfD.
Vacate and relist. The Redirect views present valid arguments. I don't see the need to rush and close this out of process. And if the BADNAC isn't bad enough, I'm also troubled by the closer's prior involvement in editing the page and other related articles. I do give them credit for admitting their mistake, but they had ample chance to revert it, yet failed to do so. And their suggestion of getting the nom to withdraw the AfD after valid !votes to delete or redirect have been entered also suggests the closer isn't familiar enough with the process to handle NACs.
Owen×☎14:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak relist not a terrible close as consensus is clearly leaning keep, but there are valid redirect arguments and this close is probably better left to be done by an administrator. FrankAnchor14:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Vote to keep an article like this needs to be created at some point and now we have the first opinion poll this is the time to do it, buy the end of August there will likely be around half a dozen.
Kalamikid (
talk)
15:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thomas Matthew Crooks – 1) Socks do not have standing to start DRVs. 2) Having said that, the consensus is very clear with the trend of endorse > relist > overturn that this DRV is not going to overturn the SNOW close in the short term, and so there is no benefit to leaving this illegitimate appeal run its course. Note that this is not a snow close, see #1, just answering a possible reason to let this run despite #1. 3) When all the dust settles, cooler heads will determine whether this should be a standalone article or merged into
Attempted assassination of Donald Trump per
WP:BLP1E, and keeping in mind especially clause 3 thereof. (
non-admin closure)
Jclemens (
talk)
20:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
A user SNOW-closed a discussion after just 5 hours, so short some people in certain time zones can’t respond, and on their talk page, refused to re-open the discussion. And while keepers cited how BIO1E does not apply, this does not take into consideration the
WP:RECENTISM concerns, which went unaddressed.
Downerr2937 (
talk)
17:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Relist Absolutely zero rationale for such an early closure. Based on the policy arguments there wasn't clear consensus for keep.
Kcmastrpc (
talk)
17:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse – the consensus was quite overwhelming. Considering the deletion request was based on
WP:BLP1E, it stands to reason the majority of 'keep' votes would be addressing it. I would also disagree that concerns regarding
WP:RECENTISM were unaddressed; plenty of editors highlighted the article's notability and widespread coverage, particularly with reference to past assassination attempts. I fail to see the value in reopening it, to be honest. GhostOfNoMeme17:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The close of this AfD was blatantly inaccurate. There were no "strong policy-based arguments" for an aricle, only for inclusion.
Qwirkle (
talk)
17:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment as closer.
WP:SNOW is a shorthand for taking decisive action to avoid "long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions". I felt, reading over the discussion, that consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of keep, and backed by policy-based arguments. From my point of view, we could spend a full week arguing over the AfD, which would then be closed as keep, or I could close it as keep immediately, reflecting the consensus and saving a lot of editors a lot of time. I did not see any scenario in which this AfD was closed as anything other than keep given the !votes of editors so far, our policies, and the simple fact that over the next 7 days, *more* information is likely to come to light about Crooks, and *more* reliable journalistic profiles are going to be written about him. This is not a case of
WP:IAR, but it is a case of
WP:NOT a bureaucracy. We are not a bureaucracy, and my close was intended to reflect the discussion's overwhelming consensus and save us all some time and thousands of words of argument. —
Ganesha811 (
talk)
17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If I was not clear, what I mean is that the policy-based arguments for 'Keep', specifically, were stronger than the policy-based arguments for 'Redirect' (by far the second-most common position). This was not a vote and I did not read it as such. —
Ganesha811 (
talk)
17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nonsense. Looking at the first few votes, I see blatant "other crap exists" arguments. Mmoving downward, I see notability arguments - which do not, at all, justify a separate article, only inclusion . I see a great many people whose balls are apparently crystal, justifying retention because surely an article's worth of information is bound to surface in a day..or a week...fortnight...century.
Notability is important due to the third condition of
WP:BLP1E, on which the deletion proposal was based. The third condition is clearly not satisfied, owing to the significance of the event and the perpetrator's notability.
"John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented."
This is why the notability discussion.
Continuing the AfD seems like a pointless exercise considering the consensus and weakness (in my view) of the arguments to redirect. GhostOfNoMeme17:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relist, the process was short circuited and closed with a rationale that clearly endorses
WP:NOTAVOTE ideals than actually looking at the consensus of arguments for and against. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c18:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse The vote was overwhelming. Also, I will add that it is a bit strange that the nominee has very few edits and the account was made only 2 weeks ago and they are already aware of terms like "SNOW-closed", "BIO1E" and "
WP:RECENTISM"... suspicious is all I'll say....
Inexpiable (
talk)
18:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse - While it was preferable that the AfD be kept open longer, there was no way a consensus to delete or redirect were going to happen. --
MuZemike18:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is a worldwide project, your comment fails to address the fact that editors in some timezones were never given a chance to participate. Your comment also fails to address that it was not a
WP:SNOW close, as even by the numbers, there were a not insignificant number of !votes to merge, redirect or delete. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c18:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment The AFD was only around 2/3 in favor of keeping, with strong arguments on both sides. There is a consensus to keep at the time but that close, so early is inappropriate especially when certain editors will not even get to participate, myself included, who would’ve voted redirect if given the opportunity.
Downerr2937 (
talk)
18:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The odds of a strong consensus to redirect emerging were astronomically remote. 'Keep' was a clear majority, and the longer the AfD remained open the larger, IMO, that majority would have become as coverage inevitably grows over the coming week. That you didn't get to participate is unfortunate, but I question the value in relisting the AfD. The conclusion was never going to be anything other than to keep. It seems like an exercise in pointlessness. GhostOfNoMeme18:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse speedy close. Based on the discussion, and precedent on other attempted assassins, there is zero chance that the result would be an outright deletion. It is possible, albeit very unlikely, that a "redirect" outcome could emerge, but that is a discussion for an article talkpage, and does not require an AFD to be open. Keeping the AFD open is a time sink.
Sjakkalle(Check!)18:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Is the guy that shot Robert Fico on Wikipedia? Why are we giving the Trump assassin any publicity? He is not famous or notable. No reason he should be on Wikipedia.
Kyūka96 (
talk)
18:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, he has his own page on the Slovakian-language Wikipedia:
Juraj Cintula [
sk. Donald Trump is the former president of the United States; considerably more notable, especially for the English-language Wikipedia. :) GhostOfNoMeme19:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The appellant's point about timezones is well taken. Editors in some parts of the world would not have been able to participate in the AFD.
There is a distinction between a Speedy Keep and a Snowball close. The guidelines for Speedy Keep state that they should not be confused. The closer has confused them. A closer who confuses a Speedy Keep close and a Snowball close is a closer who has not reviewed the relevant guidelines in sufficient detail to be making either a Speedy Keep close or a Snowball close. There is no way that this could have been a Speedy Keep. It might have been a Snowball close, but calling the two types of close the same thing shows undue haste.
Endorse/Keep, What a waste of time. The idea of RECENTISM is hardly a reason, as many historic and notable events are routinely cited with recent news stories and such. I've seen no "strong arguments" that support deletion of the article, before, or now. All assassins and would be assassins have articles for the same reason this one has. What is so unique about this article that it should be deleted?? If an another discussion was initiated, we would only have to relist the prior voters, and wait for the same overwhelming consensus to keep the article all over again. Someone should SNOW close this peckish and ridiculous discussion. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
18:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse/Keep For the same reason as the previous deletion. "John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented." Self explanatory! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Historyexpert2 (
talk •
contribs)
18:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse:
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would apply when other stuff does not follow policy. Other stuff was used as an example of policy. Also, not all three prongs were met. More people saying the same thing more and more could not have helped the closed-circle discussion; it could only have progressed that way per
WP:SNOW.
BarntToust (
talk)
18:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse I don't necessarily agree with the KEEP decision (personally I think the redirect arguments based on
WP:BLP1E have some weight), but consensus is never going to be anything other than KEEP even if the article is relisted, which is why SNOW was appropriate in this case.
Qwaiiplayer (
talk)
18:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
overturn Most keep votes assumed that there will eventually be enough info for a separate article, ignoring that there isn't such information now. Consensus on a bad position is not what we are about.
Mangoe (
talk)
18:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's already enough for a separate article; by the end of the AfD - 7 days later - there will be even more. It was always going to be a Keep vote. GhostOfNoMeme18:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Counter comment — In other words, we should give every perpetrator of a mass shooting his own article?? I don't think so. We are discussing assassins and would be assassins of presidents, etc. It is perfectly "consistent" and "rationale" to have an article for this individual on that basis alone. Even if we get a 50/50 vote between redirect and keep, it would result in 'no consensus' to delete. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
19:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Indeed. ...Unless most of the prior voters chime in again here, which is highly unlikely, this discussion will not amount to anything worth ever mentioning again. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
19:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relist Strong arguments were presented throughout. Even if consensus wouldn't have changed with time, the discussion was closed prematurely, in my opinion. That being said, it'll probably take less than the standard 7 days to come to a clearer consensus.
XtraJovial (
talk •
contribs)
19:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment — The strongest argument we saw for a Delete/Redirect was the idea of RECENTISM, which, once again, is routine for highly notable historic events. Also, the whole idea of a SNOW close is to acknowledge the hopelessness of turning a 2/3 vote to keep into a 2/3 vote to delete and redirect., requiring about 200 additional votes above and beyond those that have already voted. Fat chance. Hence a SNOW close. . --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
19:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note - I'd just like to highlight that this review's creator,
Downerr2937, appears to have just been blocked for sockpuppetry and ban evasion. I don't know whether the sockpuppetry extends to the AfD or this review. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
GhostOfNoMeme (
talk •
contribs) 2024-07-14T19:25:47 (UTC)
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 ≠
wiser16:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
While a hatnote does provide disambiguation, the page itself does not function as a disambiguation page
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. —
Cryptic19:27, 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
The value lies in learning, by the appellant, by others in seeing how the documentation of policy can be improved. If someone wants a discussion, within reason, let them have it. At AfD the discussion focus would be on the facts of the disambiguation page. Here, the focus is on whether the deleting admin did the right thing, which misses the problem.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
00:58, 14 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.
SportingFlyerT·C09:45, 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
It really was. You can see from the creation log that it was created as one; the only other edit made to it was to correct the typo in its target. —
Cryptic10:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I thought someone might yell WP:PTM at you. One needs to know about WP:PTM to understand why the reviewer Declined (not Rejected, implying some editing could improve it!) with the reason being WP:ONEOTHER. Oh the jargon!
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
11:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - The draft was declined by an AFC reviewer, and the reason seems correct. That is even more reason why a redirect posing as a disambiguation page is not a disambiguation page, because, as the reviewer pointed out, we don't need a real disambiguation page, let alone a fake one.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
05:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Endorse closure, but allow immediate renomination. While superficially unanimous, two of the Keep views relied on weak arguments, which isn't surprising considering their limited experience on the project. Discounting those two would leave us without a quorum. A fresh AfD will hopefully attract better participation.
Owen×☎14:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse - The right closure. Even if I agreed that some of the !votes should be ignored (and I do not), that would be an AFD round 2 argument rather than a DRV argument.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
04:15, 13 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.
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:
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
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
People want quick access to the template page so they can copy and paste the syntax
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.
Mach6115:18, 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
This is presumably what is being appealed, but it is entirely unrelated to the RfD Even if the page wasn't salted, a recreation of the redirect would fall under G4. Better safe than sorry
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) I would dispute that. In the source editor, infoboxes have code that resemble the finished product (a vertical list of fields and values), and the visual editor holds editor's hands with the TemplateData system. As an AfC reviewer, I have seen many more instances of broken citations than broken infoboxes, and I recall being able to "successfully" vandalize an infobox as a young child.
You were not at all clear what you were appealing. None of your second paragraph relevant to a redirect to the template namespace page, what you want to recreate, but about uses of the template in an article which is very different.
Thryduulf (
talk)
18:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Thryduulf You argued that a user who wouldn't know how namespaces work when searching shouldn't be accessing the template, and I gave counterarguments to that poistion.
Mach6120:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I didn't say they shouldn't be accessing the template. I said they shouldn't be editing it and wont benefit from viewing the template's code. This is very different from using the template in an article - compare:
{{Infobox person
| name = Halle Berry
| image = Halle Berry by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg
| caption = Berry in 2017
| birth_name = Maria Halle Berry
The two are very different, and the latter is not something that a very new user needs a cross-namespace redirect to. New editors should learn about namespaces before creating articles with infoboxes or adding infoboxes to articles that don't have them.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:30, 14 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.
SportingFlyerT·C21:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Mach61 such an outcome is very likely and entirely unproblematic, because the two templates are very different. Read the arguments presented in the RfDs and you will understand this.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:34, 14 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
Akshay Kharodia – Endorsed. It was examined whether significant new information has come to light since the redirection that would justify having this article again, considering the technical obstacle to its reintroduction that was imposed by consensus at AfD. The consensus of editors is that, while there is evidently some new information in the form of new sources included in the draft they were shown, the new information is not significant.If a review of new facts based on this draft is sought in this forum again, the draft should be suitable for a quick review, easily conveying significant new information such as may appear in the future. (
non-admin closure) —
Alalch E.10:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
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
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. FrankAnchor11:09, 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.
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
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.
StarMississippi14:15, 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. FrankAnchor02:28, 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
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".
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.
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.
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.
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
Overturn and delete. Supervote.
WP:ATD is not a carte blanche to ignore a consensus, and merge closure is effectively equivalent to keep because nobody actually performs the merge.
Stifle (
talk)
11:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relist or overturn to delete (involved). This is a supervote as others have already mentioned.
WP:ATD does not override other notability guidelines since editing does not address the reasons for deletion, the merge wasn't even the first option of the one user who suggested it, and it is problematic as is per the points made by Flatscan.
Let'srun (
talk)
17:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
StarMississippi03:12, 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
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.
@
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.) —
Cryptic07:09, 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.
StarMississippi14:17, 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.
StarMississippi00:19, 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. FrankAnchor14:19, 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
@
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
@
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 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.
SportingFlyerT·C16:15, 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
User:Drmies. Yes. One person,
User:Walsh90210, said “delete”. It was an OK !vote, but the “redirect” !vote was stronger. Little else spoke to delete versus redirect. Liz’s relisting comment was particularly on point. Then you ignored Liz’s comment supervoted “delete” over “redirect”. However, I am yet to look at the content that was deleted.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
01:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I did look at the deleted content, an hour or so ago--not while I was looking at the AfD. Delete, redirect--sure. Calling that a "supervote"--well, I don't have a preference. Redirects are cheap, as DGG used to say. And there's a big difference between "delete" and "redirect" vs. "delete" and "keep".
Drmies (
talk)
01:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SmokeyJoe I was the redirect !voter and I only proposed it because it was a variant of a page title we do have (
downball). Regarding the content, it warranted deletion and I think that was an appropriate outcome and consistent with my !vote and subsequent comments down-thread.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
02:27, 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
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
One of the hardest things as wikipedia new page contributor is gathering support from other editors. This is something I have failed to do spectacularly. It's been an uphill battle to create a non-controversial page about a schoolyard ball and wall game. I genuinely don't know the answer of how to create a non-controversial page about a schoolyard ball and wall game and gather support of other editors. I thought it was by addressing arguments and making my case but others are very quick to shout badger-er. If others genuinely have advice on how to build support for a new page then I'd appreciate you dropping by my talk page.
Rockycape (
talk)
00:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There is one thing, really, and one thing only, and that's reliable sources establishing notability. I just looked at the deleted version: it simply doesn't have any, and that's really all there is to it--and that's what the participants in that discussion pointed out. I think you disagree with them on what was reliable etc., but if you want to claim to be new to all this, then at some point--and I think this is the point--you will have to accept that more experienced editors aren't talking nonsense, and you should listen to them.
Drmies (
talk)
00:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Drmies: Could you please show me how to look at the deleted version? (post the link?) I am having a lot of difficulty doing that. I would like to have the content so that if in the future I get the chance to build a draft then I don't have to start from stratch.
Rockycape (
talk)
00:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't expect any who flagged the page or participated in the AfD or Deletion review to lose any sleep over this. Wikipedia is not going anywhere and will only continue to grow. But wikipedia is no different to other places on the internet where trust is lacking. We should be having a tournament of arguments. Unfortunately here it was more of a "stacks on".
Rockycape (
talk)
00:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I was expected to argue for the page I created to be kept in this Deletion review. That I have argued strongly has been used against me. That's the rub I guess.
I have worked out for myself that one of the options of this Deletion review is for additional references/sources to be added to the Down-ball page. I have in fact being doing this in the background. I can't add these anywhere yet as I can't even see the deleted content, but I plan to add these to a new draft if I'm not locked out of doing so.
01. Hyndman, B., Mahony, L., Te Ava, A., Smith, S. and Nutton, G., 2017. Complementing the Australian primary school Health and Physical Education (HPE) curriculum: exploring children's HPE learning experiences within varying school ground equipment contexts. _Education 3-13_, _45_(5), pp.613-628.
02. Hunt, H., 2007. Counterintuitive problems in dynamics and vibration.
03. Hyndman, B. and Chancellor, B., 2017. Are secondary school environments conducive for active play opportunities? An objective assessment across Australian secondary school playgrounds. _International Journal of Play_, _6_(1), pp.40-52.
04. McKinty, J., 2016. Losing our marbles: What's happening to children's folklore in schools?. _Play and Folklore_, (66), pp.37-44.
05. McKinty, J., THE HIDDEN HERITAGE OF THE SCHOOLYARD.
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. LizRead!Talk!07:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
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
StarMississippi12:37, 8 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.
StarMississippi01:28, 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
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
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
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.
StarMississippi01:27, 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
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.