Kane Tanaka (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Much like Chiyo Miyako below, this was closed as delete despite the consensus being for keep, or at least no consensus. She is currently the world's oldest person, but there seems to be a group of editors that wants to delete most supercentenarian articles. The AfD's closer, User:Spartaz, pretty much gave an WP:IDONTLIKEIT response and said the arguments for meeting GNG had been refuted time and time again by delete voters. This is patently false if we examine the sources provided. While some were routine, not all were. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. Closer correctly dismissed most "keep" !votes that just blandly asserted that this person should be automatically notable because of her great age. This is not based on any policy or guideline. All sources boil down to routine coverage. AFD is not a vote, so the numbers of "I like it" !votes were correctly dismissed. Disclosure: I was the nom of this contested AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of I like it votes is around three. Several votes mentioned the news coverage of her, including a Newsweek article on her. One user speculated that this was based on the Wikipedia article, which is untrue. It seems that non-english sources were casually dismissed. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the sources went beyond WP:ROUTINE and nothing beyond some trivia could be sourced on them, apart from date of birth/birthplace, which can easily be accomodated in a list article. --Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn An outrageous supervote contrary to WP:DGFA, "Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. ... When in doubt, don't delete". The raw voting was 21 Keep, 5 Delete and 4 Delete or Merge/Redirect. The outcome of "delete and redirect" was advocated by just about nobody in the well-attended discussion and so was obviously not the consensus view. Andrew D. (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as I said in the similar DRV below I think you can reasonably argue that being the world's oldest person is a "well-known and significant award or honor", which WP:BIO recognises as evidence of notability. This means the main keep argument isn't baseless and given the heavy numerical majority I don't think it can be closed as delete. Given that the subject is from a non-English speaking country we should give more weight to SNGs then if she wasn't. Hut 8.5 18:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not an "award or honor". Nobody decides to make you the oldest person, nor is it something that you work hard for to attain. It's something that just happens to you. --Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not entirely true, there are organisations which attempt to figure out who the world's oldest person is and certify somebody as being the world's oldest. It is a major achievement of the type which an average person would consider to be significant. You don't have to agree with this, but you can't ignore the fact that the bulk of the people who took part in the AfD disagreed with your position. The closing admin shouldn't override that unless there is a strong, compelling reason for doing so. I'm not seeing one here. Hut 8.5 18:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an "achievement", it just happens. For someone to win, say, the Tour de France, they'd have to train hard for years in order to achieve that. That's an achievement. However, even if this were not the case, being "good" or "bad" or achieving something does nto automatically mean that a subject merits an article. There must be something of note to fill the article. All of note that we have here is date of birth... All the breathless "but it's a supercentenarian!" doesn't change that. --Randykitty (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work like that. We don't get to decide not to have an article on someone because editors don't consider their accomplishments to be sufficiently worthy. All our notability standards are phrased in terms of what other people consider to be important or significant. I agree that merely being a supercentenerian does not create any sort of notability, but that's not the argument here. Hut 8.5 20:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the argument here, that being a supercentenarian makes one notable and that we therefore should have an article filled with trivia. My argument is 1/ Coverage is only routine and any notability is related to the one event of reaching a high age. 2/ Even if the preivous argument is held to be invalid and the subject is judged to be notable, we do not have anything to write except some trivia. Notability does not mean that we must have an article. --Randykitty (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anybody in the AfD arguing that being a supercentenarian makes somebody notable. There are plenty of people arguing that being the oldest person in the world makes someone notable, but that's a much stronger claim. Supercentenarian includes estimates that there are hundreds of supercentenarians alive at any one time and that over 1,500 have been documented. Very few of those people will attain the status of being the oldest in the world. I can see your argument regarding notability, but the balance of opinion in the AfD was against that view and to overrule this we would need to accept that the counterargument was so flawed it should be given minimal weight. I don't think it's that bad. If you base an argument on the article content being "trivia" then it becomes harder to ignore the majority opinion because trivia is a lot more subjective than notability. Hut 8.5 21:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reclose as Keep This was another ridiculous deletion with the overwhelming majority voting Keep the closer User:Spartaz along with User:Sandstein who closed the Chiyo Miyako AFD have a history of bias against longevity related articles and ignored the arguments made by people who voted Keep. Tanaka clearly passed WP:Basic and WP:GNG. Drunk in Paris (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please evidence your accusation of bias. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I voted in the AfD so will not be voting in the deletion review, but the closing of this article is consistent with the current status of the other article recently at deletion review, which redirected the limited biographical information to another page. AfD is not a vote. SportingFlyer talk 23:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Request temp undelete of the deleted history please. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see the deleted content, but at this point my reading of the AfD is that "keep" would have been defendable, "no consensus" very easily defendable, "redirect" defendable and within admin discretion (but not NAC discretion), but that there was not a consensus for "delete". There were many "delete" !votes that were really "merge" votes, all the "notable"/"ONEVENT"/"NOPAGE" !votes, and many delete !votes were weak. The nominator's statement was even consistent with "Redirect and protect". So many delete !votes were failing WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. It was understandable that the strong and common "not independently notable" sentiments being rejected by others meant that an AfD discussion was needed for the formality. I am leaning to Overturn to "Redirect with history intact and protect", but I really should look at the deleted history first, just in case it was worse than what anyone in the AfD actually said. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the history under the redirect. I can't see any reason it should have been deleted before redirecting. The only reason to do that is in cases of WP:BLP, copyright, or other serious issues which make it impossible to host the content on a wikimedia server. If it's just a lack of notability, leaving the history intact and redirecting is the usual practice. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would agree, it’s just a notability issue (much as many AfD !voters argued), nothing more, there is no reason to to stretch the discussion close to a consensus to delete. Much more than a stretch. I’m guessing the motivation to delete was to enforce the decision, noting the article was recently created (recreated??) and the general controversy over old people articles. If that was the concern, the solution is to protect the redirect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 August 6#Chiyo Miyako (closed). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Clearly no consensus to delete. This is getting ridiculous with these WP:IDONTLIKEIT closures and supervotes. Smartyllama (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I gingerly suggest that because these closures were made by very experienced admins, this might not be as straightforward and ridiculous as you would think at first sight. --Randykitty (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse since Spartaz properly weighed the comments that staving off death for an abnormally long time inherently generates notability. The comparisons to athletics are grossly misguided, and speak to the problem I raised at the Chiyo Miyako DRV; happening to live for some arbitrary length of time does not confer notability unless independent, secondary sources discuss it in non-trivial coverage. The keep votes did not explain what coverage actually met that threshold. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The delete !votes didn't explain why sources in the article don't meet that requirement. We have an article in Newsweek (for example) focused on this person. There aren't a massive number of details, but generally speaking, Newsweek counts as an "independent secondary source" and being the topic of the article makes the coverage "non-trivial". There are a number of sources like that linked in the article. None stellar but coverage isn't "trivial" even if it mainly covers what you consider to be trivial parts of her life. Hobit (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two sentences in a long Newsweek article about longevity is hardly significant coverage, though, and the Newsweek source was rebutted in the AfD. SportingFlyer talk 05:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn to NC. A redirect without delete might also have been reasonable (and what I'd have !voted for as I think editorially it's the right outcome). But there clearly are sources that cover her (the Newsweek article, for example, has a couple of paragraphs though they are quite fluffy) so I don't agree arguments that she meets WP:N can be entirely discarded. Hobit (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and TBAN the keepist army » Shadowowl | talk 23:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's insane; you gotta be kidding. 65HCA7 13:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Nothing but WP:ROUTINE and in fact no certainty that she is the world's oldest person, just the next person on the GRG list of validated people, a source no more reliable than other WP:RS, and possibly even less so. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the re-direct and include some brief information in the article the same way Koto Okubo and Chiyo Miyako already do. Georgia guy (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - The deletion of this Wiki article is a blatant example of supervote and a total disregard of the AfD process and its purpose. There was no consensus for delete, and, in fact, it was quite the opposite. Overturn to keep or NC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - There was no consensus to delete the article. The timing of the close is of interest, because at the end a consecutive stream of keep !votes were clearly establishing momentum. Agree with the supervote complaints. A classic example of a wrongheaded closure following a flawed AFD nomination. Endorsers utterly fail to convince me. Jusdafax (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Many keep !votes actually asserted that the subject met the requirements of the GNG (especially in the later half of the discussion); this was not represented in the closer's comment. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There is nothing notable about Tanaka living longer then is typical for humans and we don't even know if she actually even is the worlds oldest living person. All she is is the person at the top of the GRG's list, while reliable sources state there are other living people older then her, such as Tava Colo. The article was full of fan trivia and provided nothing encyclopedically useful that doesn't fit snuggly into a table, where it's more easily viewed. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know Tava Colo is truly older, as opposed to some middle-aged person claiming to be 115? 65HCA7 13:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources say Tava Colo is older - it is not for us to determine on our own who the oldest is. In time, Guinness will announce who the oldest is, which very well might not be Tanaka. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn ... Clearly no consensus to delete.Emily Khine (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• While I'm trying to be impartial as I've edited pages in this topic a bit, I'd still personally vote Overturn, per reasons given by nominator and others above. If the page isn't kept, then the content previously held there should become A SECTION of the List of Japanese supercentenarians page. As mentioned above by SmokeyJoe, "[...] "keep" would have been defendable, "no consensus" very easily defendable, "redirect" defendable and within admin discretion (but not NAC discretion), but that there was not a consensus for "delete"." Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - This falls under WP:ROUTINE coverage, her one claim to fame is being the oldest but not oldest ever person in the world. Her biography can easily be manageable on a list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - clearly a WP:IDONTLIKEIT supervote, by someone with a bias against longevity articles no less. The article was improved significantly over the course of the AfD, and Kane Tanaka does meet the GNG anyway - I'm not suggesting an article about every single supercentenarian as that would lead to hundreds of articles about various barely-notable-at-best people who just happened to make it to a certain age, but there should be an article about the oldest verified living person as that is very much a notable title so to speak and is a topic of significant public interest (note the news coverage across the globe whenever the oldest living person dies). Up to and including Nabi Tajima, every oldest living person dating back to 1987 has an article, so while some people frown upon WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments, they do bring up a valid point in showing that the deletions of articles on Chiyo Miyako and now Kane Tanaka present a double standard. Delma Kollar is considered notable enough for an article even though she, at 114, was over a year younger at her death than Tanaka's current age (Kollar not even being in the top 100 oldest people of all time as of this writing) and never made it higher than the fourth oldest living person. What I'm gleaning from these recent AfD's is "supercentenarians from the 90s and 00s are better than current supercentenarians", which is complete nonsense - hopefully whoever closes this actually reads through and picks up on the actual consensus as opposed to overriding it based on his or her own dislike for Kane Tanaka. 65HCA7 13:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Your referring to "bias" from the closer and insinuations that "delete" !votes were based on some dislike of Tanaka are insulting. Come up with proof of bias or strike those comments. --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, I'm tired of seeing overturn opinions that do not assume good faith by bashing the closer. This isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND, prove your points by citing policy and guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article Anna Eliza Williams just closed as delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Eliza Williams (2nd nomination), previously the article had been kept by the same arguments that are presented above. Should there be a guideline or policy that states that anyone over the age of x is automatically notable? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There should be a policy which forbids frivolous renominations like that. And there is: WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew D. (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You are talking about an almost 3 year gap though, its just interesting how consensus changes on some things. Why are some articles about really old people kept while others aren't? Would the oldest person currently living in country x automatically warrant an article for example? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep - I'm missing the policy-based reason for a delete - the GNG is met. Certainly, the view expressed by a strong consensus of !voters in the AFD that the oldest living person is inherently notable is a valid, reasonable view and should not have been disregarded. --B (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is twofold. One, as is documented above and at the Chiyo Miyako DRV, this area is beset with SPAs who have badly distorted the actual consensus on this. Secondly, the reasoning is circular; being old is inherently notable because it's notable for someone to be old, not because actual secondary sources are producing meaningful coverage of said person. The sources are of no substance, and the new ones here don't significantly change that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I also want to add that its not like we are totally deleting the name "Kane Tanaka" from Wikipedia. She is notable enough for a mention the oldest people list and possibly a paragraph or two under List of Japanese supercentenarians#People. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. As in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiyo Miyako, which I closed, I am of the view that the closer correctly gave less weight to opinions that assumed inherent notability of very old people, which is not supported by our guidelines. Sandstein 07:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I suspect any closer will be aware of it, it's worth noting that that AfD closure was overturned at DRV. Hobit (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then may I note that I was baffled that that DRV was closed "overturn to no consensus" instead of "no consensus to overturn"... --Randykitty (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't think that it would be baffling that the outcome desired by two-thirds of the participants would be baffling even if you felt the endorse side had the stronger argument (which I suspect we disagree about). Hobit (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn It looks to me that a notability argument of "keep" is defensible: there are some arguably adequate sources (at least [1] and [2] and maybe more, I haven't looked). Of course some people may quite reasonably think these fall below GNG requirements. On policy issues I am also seeing that opinions may reasonably differ. WP:BLP1E is likely to be the strongest argument but even here we are instructed on what "[w]e generally should avoid" so people may think this article is a situation where we may legitimately decide that avoidance it not necessary. A lot of "keep" arguments do seem to based on inherent notability (WP:ILIKEIT) but I suspect quite a lot of those complaining about these !votes do not realise the extent to which they are disclosing their own WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitudes. It is, therefore, very difficult for a closer to weigh up all this. My natural inclination would be to say that any close ranging from "delete" to "keep" would all be within reasonable, though broad, discretion. However, as the AFD nominator said, "redirect" was a possibility, indeed the title is a likely search term. I therefore think that all the "deletes" should be construed as "redirects". Fine, that's how Spartaz closed it but then he went and deleted as well. There was no argument put forward that the content was abusive – the content should not have been deleted on the closer's personal decision. I think the deletion aspect of the close should be overturned. I can't personally decide between favouring a close of "redirect" or "no consensus" combined with protection if it turns out to be necessary. Thincat (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A number of folks here appear to be interested in relitigating the AfD. This isn't the place for that. The question here is did the closing admin read consensus correctly? and the answer is yes, they did. Admins have to enforce policies and guidelines as they are written. Claiming that being the world's oldest is inherently notable isn't codified anywhere, and as such should be given little weight in an AfD. And if that sounds bureaucratic, please remember that we need our guidelines to be created by the community at large, not ad hoc in an obscure AFD. If you strongly believe that being the world's oldest (known) person is inherently notable, then begin a discussion to make this a WP:SNG. Until then, this argument must be given little weight. Vanamonde (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we do that, when there was no such discussion for the notability of the world's shortest, tallest, and heaviest people? SBHarris 23:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ignoring all that, there did appear to be something approaching consensus that WP:N was met. Hobit (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am amazed that somebody could read that AfD and conclude that it was "approaching consensus that WP:N was met"... Now of course if you ignore everything that Vanamonde has said, yeah, then you might arrive at a different conclusion. I gingerly suggest that it is not very helpful to ignore well-founded arguments. --Randykitty (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there something that I'm missing in Spartaz's closing argument? He stated that "claims of adequate sourcing have been well refuted". We go by policy and guidelines when it comes to notability, not opinions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • He did state that. But that wasn't the consensus of the discussion. There were a number of sources provided and while some found some of them insufficient, others disagreed. AuthorAuthor for example countered the "local" argument (a California paper isn't local coverage for someone living in Japan). Hobit (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is worth pointing out again that the close came after a consecutive string of keep !votes. I am not charging bad faith, but the timing was poor, to say the least. In contrast, this page has been now been open two weeks, when the admin instructions state that one week is standard. Here we have another dubious situation, especially since, as I see it, a close to endorse sets a deletionist-weighted precedent across the Wiki. A decision needs to be made here in a timely manner, and I urge the closer to consider these factors. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup, a "string of keep !votes" based solidly on policy like: "She is the oldest living person in the world. Revisit when she dies, given that she isn't anywhere near being the oldest person ever (she'll be irrelevant)." Yup, that one tipped the scale. --Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close: the closing admin weighed the arguments correctly, and the current close is appropriate / within guidelines. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn there was clearly no consensus to delete. We cannot permit such an obvious supervote to stand. Lepricavark (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a vote. If the only thing on the keep side are opinions then policy/guideline based arguments would weigh more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been editing here for years. I know that it's not a vote. Lepricavark (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per [3]. The only new issue would be that this is PRESENTLY a living person (hence a BLP is considered) and BLP1E may apply if the person shuns all publicity and wants to be left alone, and thus is a "private person" and not a public personality while she is alive. (This changes some decent time after her demise). As for extreme documented age being "inherently notable," that's ridiculous to hold otherwise when WP has lists of shortest, tallest, heaviest people ever and in various countries (none of them achievements but all medically interesting), with a number of these people have BIOS based on the one fact alone. (We have a BIO of the tallest person in Puerto Rico, for example). I would direct the deletionist armies to all these BIOS and let them hack away. If they can get them all killed, then I will listen when they come back to OLDEST PEOPLE. SBHarris 23:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is why we have WP:WAX. if you want to go down that route then why was Anna Eliza Williams deleted? "Being the oldest person in the world does not grant an automatic notability presumption." Kane's article contained (name, nationality, age, birth/death dates) that are also easily displayed on a list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can note WP:WAX or WP:OSE all you like, but in fact precedent is a major way in which the WP community "discovers" consensus in murky WP:N questions. We even have for this purpose a list of "common outcomes" for WP:N debates which includes examples of things now generally decided as "keep": [4]. It is there so you can look at it, and not just mumble "OSE." The illustrative examples certainly cannot be logically figured out from the five pillars. The reason we look at president is that WP "consensus" isn't just a matter of who shows up on a given page on a given day. It needs a larger presence over time and content which must transcend ephemeral (and soon forgotten) arguments between a few dozen people about some small thing, if we are to have any basic harmony in a work written by untold thousands over a generation now (and counting). WP does have its own version of stare decisis, and it is not trumped by the ever misused WP:OSE (a self-contradictory essay I wish had never been written). Precedent and prior examples of consensus and arbcom rulings, in fact, are how we got all these legalistic guidelines everybody keeps quoting. Most of them didn't even exist in 2005 when I started here. Somebody invented them, and other people saluted them. Finally the last holdouts had to shut up, or else were blocked and even banned for disruption. That's the way WP works, to the extent that it works at all. It doens't work by IAR, but only occasionally pays lip service to it. I think for the humor. SBHarris 07:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I linked you to arguments to avoid in AfD by referring to WP:WAX, the closer I'm sure takes these things into account. This section in turn links to WP:INN, and WP:E=N, yes these are essays but the point is that referring to other articles has also been discussed on Wikipedia in regards to AfD outcomes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As with the last DRV, and indeed the arbitration case in 2011, through your verbosity I really don't know and can't follow quite what your point is. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Canvassing: See here. --Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  "Canvassing?" Notices are often posted to editors/admins' talk pages if they have worked on an article that is AfD'd in case they want to participate. A standard Wiki notice is hardly an example of canvassing. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed this on the talk page of an editor who did not participate in the AfD, nor the DRV, nor edited the article. Check for yourself... --Randykitty (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The notifications were left for participants in the Chiyo Miyako DRV who supported overturning the AfD result. That definitely looks like inappropriate canvassing to me. Hut 8.5 18:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]