Rupert Dover (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Allow recreation. Dover (Chinese: 陶輝) has received significant coverage following Next Magazine's scoop regarding the legality of his place of residency. See, among other sources, RTHK, Ming Pao, Oriental Daily News, Apple Daily. Significant content regarding the news has been added to the Chinese version of the article: see differences between revisions. feminist #WearAMask😷 16:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Google translate is not reliable when translating between Chinese and English. We need an independent Chinese speaker who's familiar with Chinese news sources to evaluate this. We may be able to recruit one on WT:WikiProject China; anyone object to me posting there?—S Marshall T/C 16:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good. Though I've found the Chinese to be largely good enough for checking for notability. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just posted a link to this discussion at WT:HK. For what it's worth, I read and write Chinese natively. feminist #WearAMask😷 17:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There isn't actually anything stopping someone from recreating this. It isn't salted and the deleted version was userfied to User:SCP-2000/Rupert Dover so there isn't any deleted history. As long as a recreation is a significant improvement on the AfDed version it shouldn't be speedily deleted, and I'm sure a pile of new news coverage would meet this. Hut 8.5 17:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. It's just that I would like to seek some form of confirmation before recreating this. feminist #WearAMask😷 01:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I want to echo Hut 8.5 here, but want to specifically endorse the close. This wasn't deleted because of a lack of significant coverage, it was deleted because of WP:NOT/a BLP attack page. Any new article must clear that threshold, not the GNG threshold. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There is certainly something notable here. English sources don't get me to believe there is enough for a BLP, but the issue of British police in HK during the riots certainly seems well covered. Hobit (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recent news coverage has nothing to do with any form of protests. It concerns what is increasingly a scandal involving his place of residency, and the current evidence is pretty damning for a police officer at his level. True that English-language media in Hong Kong doesn't seem to have picked up on this, but there is no requirement that reliable sources must be in English. feminist #WearAMask😷 01:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not ruling it out. I'm just saying there is enough for an article somewhere. The English sources don't get us to this being a BLP. I can believe others might. Hobit (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I have read the four proffered sources through, google translate is plenty good enough. They are tabloid-style personal sleuthing primary sources, about his house being in non compliance for a third floor extension. A neighbours dispute. This is not reputable sourcing, and is it primary source reporting, facts, no transformative commentary. Not notable, with a huge angle of violating WP:BLP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the four sources are tabloid (RTHK is HK govt owned public broadcaster). Lands Department has started investigation, so it's not personal sleuthing as SmokeyJoe suggested either.--Roy17 (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reporters following the subject, taking street photographs of the subject, and photographs of his house, and accessing court documents, that's not the style of reputable sources whether you call it "tabloid" or not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The house and the person are the subjects of a scandal (suspected illegal occupation of government land). Could SmokeyJoe please enlighten us on a realistic approach for journalists reporting on this without interviewing the person or filming the house? Note that the journalists work in public space and freedom of panorama of buildings is allowed in HK just like in the UK.--Roy17 (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a publisher of investigative journalism. Wikipedia wait's for reliably published secondary source to comment on the topic. Notability-attesting sources are well separated from the topic by time and space. Your sources are too close. Wait for sources that can be described as "stories", not "reports". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We must remember that these are mere accusations of malfeasance, and that a person is innocent until proven guilty. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely more than just "his house being in non compliance for a third floor extension". It's a scandal where more details are continuously revealed. His houses were suspected to be constructed on government land for his private use. He has been providing short-term leases with his second house; now the Home Affairs Department has confirmed that Dover has not obtained a hotel licence for that house, and will be conducting an investigation. [1] Two journalists were arrested while conducting an investigatiion [2], sparking condemnation from the Hong Kong Journalists Association. Plenty of coverage surrounding Dover. There are strict guidelines surrounding house sizes in Hong Kong, with the potential to torpedo the reputation of public officials (see Henry Tang illegal basement controversy for an example). feminist #WearAMask😷 16:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not definitely more than housing law non-compliance. There may be low level corruption. At best, this whole story is investigative journalism. It was properly deleted. It is foul of WP:BLP, sleuthing primary sources, and WP:NOTNEWS. All of the sourcing is NOT sufficienctly distant in perspective. The sources are not sufficiently independent and not sufficiently secondary. It’s a worthy looking story, but Wikipedia is not the place to first publish the whole story. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion. Subject is notable. Independent and in-depth sources exist.--Roy17 (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give an example of a sourced two-sentence deep comment on the subject? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two paragraphs for SmokeyJoe: 《壹週刊》報道指陶輝涉嫌「非法租住」牌照屋，並引述消息指他涉違規改建天台及霸佔官地。本報記者昨到場見該屋樓高3層，包括天台，門前有小花園。¶地政總署昨回覆本報查詢，證實上址位處政府土地牌照範圍內，根據現行政策，牌照持有人不准轉讓或出租有關構築物，如有違反地政總署會向牌照持有人採取執管行動。該署稱，牌照持有人資料屬個人資料，無法提供；本報就陶輝的居住資格，以及他被指霸佔官地和違規的指控查詢，該署均沒有回應。.--Roy17 (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to use Google Translate for that, but I don't think that article shows any sort of notability whatsoever - it's about a scandal relating to the size of a house. The issue here isn't whether the subject has had press, it's whether there's been enough coverage of them to get past our WP:BLP requirement. I don't have any problem having an article on him if it's properly done, but I'm very concerned he's either not notable or won't pass our strict BLP standards and will end up being an attack page. SportingFlyer T·C 14:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. That is a news report, rolling factual statements, no trans formative comment, no contextualization, no opinion of the author. It is not a secondary source. It does not meet the criteria of the WP:GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be preserved because Dover has enough awareness for the citizens, and he was reported by most of the mainstream media, regardless of internet or physical media.--Yolopertz (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: was just recreated. If the recreation is kept, I suggest merging the history from User:SCP-2000/Rupert Dover given the similarities --DannyS712 (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which is very concerning, considering I think the new version is a BLP attack page, which were my exact concerns above. SportingFlyer T·C 00:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately this page continues to be a WP:COATRACK/WP:BLPATTACK page, some of the newly added material is neither neutral or about him at all. I'd recommend deleting and salting until we can write a neutral article on him. Again, the fact he receives coverage is not my issue with this article, nor do I have any particular desire to protect this individual, but I have a strong desire to keep Wikipedia as neutral as possible. SportingFlyer T·C 21:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians are educators, and that's why it's so important that we tell the truth. Npov doesn't mean we have to whitewash things. If the sources are negative about this gentleman then our article should reflect them. BLP policy is about removing unsourced contentious material. There's rightly no provision that requires us to remove contentious material that's immediately followed by an inline citation to a source. I still think we need input from someone independent who can tell us whether those are the best sources, though: I'm not linguistically or culturally equipped to evaluate them.—S Marshall T/C 12:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair, but WP:BLP functionally leads with: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. The very next sentence is that we are an "encyclopaedia, not a tabloid." Covering very recent scandals in an article about someone who may not be otherwise notable seems to me to be a flagrant WP:BLP violation. SportingFlyer T·C 19:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion/keep recreation although not notable coverage as of the time of the original deletion request, there has been signifiant coverage of the recent scandals in reputable english sources such as SCMP [3][4] and HKFP [5]--17jiangz1 (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Why is this at deletion review? The AfD was 7 months ago, with two DRVs in the same month (closed as a unanimous endorse). The article was recently recreated now, 7 months after the old AfD. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was recreated after the DRV was initiated. SportingFlyer T·C 22:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - I nominated the article for deletion as it was simply an attack page. The current content of the has not changed this. A person of Dover's rank would not usually warrant an article, and the current controversy is a very common problem in HK due to lax enforcement by the Lands Department; the issue has some merit, and Dover as a brutal cop and major hate figure is a legitimate political target for Apple Daily. The worst that can happen is a demolition order and a fine (but IMHO, it will just get swept under the rug bearing in mind the political climate). Until there is more notable "achievements", the article should stay deleted and the space salted. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: At this point given the article has been recreated with substantially different content from that in the original AfD, opening a new AfD would probably be more appropriate if the deletion should be put up for discussion.--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. I've nominated it for deletion a second time. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BMI Gaming (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this AfD. An IP editor recently asked me to restore. Here is what they wrote:

Saw that the long-standing BMI Gaming was deleted recently. The main issue for the proposal appears to have been "They have no press coverage from reliable 3rd party sources"

BMI Gaming has been featured in prominent, "reliable 3rd party sources" from national/international newspapers and magazines, to radio and tv shows, a list of which (including links to some articles still online) can be found here: [6], but a short list of prominent 3rd party sources who have written about the firm includes : The Atlantic (Jan 2015), BBC News (Aug 2011), PlayMeter (Oct 2007), Inc. Magazine (Sep 2007), US News & World Report (Aug 2007), USA Today (May 2007), Internet Retailer Magazine (May 2007), RePlay Magazine (Aug 2006), CNN / Anderson Cooper Live - TV (Aug 2006), Entrepreneur (Jun 2006), MSNBC (Oct 2005), Newsweek (Jul 2005), Sun Sentinal (July 2005), El Mundo (Jan 2005), New York Times (Jan 2005), El Pais (Jan 2005), Fortune Small Business (Nov 2004), CNN Money (Nov 2004), PBS/WXEL - TV (Oct 2004), Palm Beach Post (Sep 2004).

None of these articles and interviews has anything to do with "B2B" or "paid marketing" as some bizarre editor claimed, or have anything to do with "cheap press releases", or paid "Top 100 lists" - In fact, BMI Gaming was awarded the nation's only recognized small business award : The annual "INC 500" List of the Top 500 (now 5000) fastest growing private companies in America from INC Magazine in 2007, during a presentation at the Chicago Hilton, headlined by President Bill Clinton, as well as making the "Hot 100" list of fast growing firms issued yearly by accounting firm PriceWaterhouseCooper and Entrepreneur Magazine.

This page should be restored, as the reason for the deletion was completely unfounded, flawed and unjust. Many people used it for quick, quality information about this popular, international firm online, and in these days of crisis, small business need all the help it can get.. Would you please reconsider reversing the deletion, given the evidence of prominence submitted ? Thanks.

I stand by my close of consensus but neutrally present the IP's arguments about sources which were not part of the original discussion Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as the clear consensus in the discussion. It may be that small businesses need all the help that they can get, but it is not Wikipedia's job to do that. It is an encyclopedia. If there was to be an article it shouldn't be written with the objective of providing help to the business by advertising it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close as proper interpretation of consensus, but potentially allow recreation with the aforementioned sources if it's done neutrally and not like advertising. Smartyllama (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close itself was clear, and even the argument made for restoration feels promotional. A quick cross-check of some of the sources above doesn't give me confidence WP:NCORP is met. For instance, the Palm Beach Post 2004 article is just an interview with the CEO in the "Moving Up" part of the local newspaper. SportingFlyer T·C 02:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - What could be done is to allow the unregistered editor's statement to be considered as a Keep !vote, and the deletion discussion can still be closed as Delete. So leave it as is. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel for the unregistered editor, because I can see why this seems unjust to them. As Wikipedians, we are under constant, unrelenting pressure to allow people to use our encyclopaedia for promotional or marketing purposes. We get an onslaught of it, every day, and we have an army of very diligent volunteers who clean it up -- sometimes doing nothing else with their volunteering time, and sometimes spending hours a day on it. If we didn't do that, then our encyclopaedia would drown in a quagmire of spam very quickly indeed. And that's why we're so grateful to those volunteers, and it's why we're careful not to undermine them. We aren't your web host and we won't allow ourselves to be used to promote your business.—S Marshall T/C 11:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The AfD was unanimous, and there's no policy-based reason in the nomination to suggest any extenuating circumstances. Just for the sake of due diligence, I checked the first source mentioned, The Atlantic. I could find nothing in the Jan 2014 issue, however, this 2014 article has a name drop. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The consensus at the AfD was clear, and could not have been clsoed otherwise, and at least one editor said that a WP:BEFORE search had been done for other sources, and nothign significant was found. The sources mentioned above were not discussed at the AfD, and since no links nor detailed bibliographic info has been given (exact date and title of article) I cannot easily check those sources now. However, there is nothing to prevent a new draft citing new sources, and written in a neutral way, from being created. If those sources do in fact pass WP:NCORP and establish the notability of the subject, it could be moved back to mainspace just as any valid draft might. I would advise the IP or any other inexperienced editor not to create this directly in the main article space, nor to move it there without either an AfC review or a review by an experienced editor here. Any version that passes or even comes close to passing NCORP will be "sufficiently different" from the deleted version that WP:CSD#G4 would not apply. (Based on the comment by RoySmith just above, i suspect the IP editor has confused mere passing mentions with significant coverage, but that is only a guess.) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Found to fail WP:CORP. Fails WP:CORP. Having sources is not the requirement, read WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Specifically, the primary criterion is A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. (Emphasis in original) When I wrote above about sources being needed, and mentioned that "passing mentions" were not enough, I was intending to imply that standard. If and only if the sources mentioned by the IP editor constitute such significant coverage, then there could be a valid article. So far no one has cited any such coverage. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the unanimous decision at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trinidad and Tobago 2–1 United States (2018 FIFA World Cup qualification) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion was closed way too early per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. Due to the large amount of participation and the fact that it wasn't relisted, I believe it would've been a "no consensus" vote and not a delete. In fact, the closing admin admits his conclusion was "controversial". KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn There were arguments made that it had a lasting impact, there were arguments made that it didn't. Both were made in relatively equal strength. Should have been closed as "No consensus" or perhaps relisted. Restore the article with no prejudice against immediately taking it to AfD again if someone wants, since relisting an article a year after the fact is confusing and unnecessarily complicated. Smartyllama (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- as closing admin drv doesn't feel the right thing here given this was deleted a pretty long time ago. That said if there's feeling that another AfD might generate a stronger consensus, I have no problem with it being restored for that purpose. I didn't see anything approaching sustained coverage of the match presented in the last AFD, so would certainly nominate it myself if no one else did. Fenix down (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no time limit on a DRV and this was only six months ago. My concern really comes from your quote I am simply not seeing a convincing argument for GNG here. It's hard to tell from this sentence whether you've looked at the article and are using the close as a !vote, or if you're summing up the arguments of the keep !voters at GNG. Considering you're experienced and generally do a very good job at closing AfDs I'm sure it's the latter, but I think this could have been communicated more clearly. Your close would have been stronger if you were more specific as to why you discounted some of the keep !votes, especially considering there were sources presented late on in the discussion. I thought about taking this to DRV at the time but as you can tell from my !vote in the AfD, I don't ultimately care whether this is kept or deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 01:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn ideally it would have been relisted. A few sources came in late and there wasn't a consensus formed IMO. At this point I'd say overturn to NC with clear leave for anyone to list at AfD immediately. I'd suggest doing a pretty good WP:BEFORE first however. Hobit (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus - This was not an easy call, but the closer appears to have discounted the Keep arguments too much, and should have closed this as No Consensus, because there was no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to gather a clearer consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think it should have been relisted, as there was more than enough participation to inform a close. Where the case is about notability, and one side is contending that their sources are sufficient to pass the GNG, and the other is saying they're wrong, the closer does need to form a judgment about who's correct. That means the closer has to analyze the sources for themselves and confirm whether they're over the bar for WP:RS: there's no other way to do it. I'm not able to tell whether I agree with them because the article hasn't been tempundeleted.—S Marshall T/C 11:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you to Cryptic for the tempundelete. To me, that looks like routine coverage of a trivial sporting event that sports writers hope is dramatic enough to sell as "news". I think the closer got it right, personally.—S Marshall T/C 16:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree with you here - if a closer is having to look to the sources to figure out if they pass GNG or not, they should be !voting, not closing. If the article hasn't been relisted, the closer shouldn't be jumping to that sort of conclusion. Closers should only look at the consensus of the discussion, not do fact-finding. SportingFlyer T·C 18:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It looks like a reasonable admin discretion rough consensus call of "delete". The delete arguments were stronger. Overall, the discussion was a mess of poor !votes and a lack of discussion, and I think relisting gave no hope for a better discussion. I routinely advocate for proponents to take a WP:THREE approach to recreation in draftspace. In the AfD, a number of sources were put forward, but without sufficient explanation of what what comment they made on the topic. Draftify, identify three WP:GNG-meeting sources, and stubify the article down to what is support by these three sources. In the sources added to the AfD, I don't see anywhere in any of them where the author of the story made a comment about the game, as opposed to mentioning facts about the game. And, that fact is just the result. Did anyone publish that it was a great game, a thrilling game, a disheartening game, a shocking game? Was there any crowd reaction? The deleted article has some unsourced commentary, but it is critical commentary on the losing team, not commentary on the game. I think this game is not notable, and that the last two sentences of the second last paragraph of United States men's national soccer team#2010–present is the appropriate level of coverage. An agonizing defeat, it was the team's worst performance in the history of the team. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. The close is rather harsh given the inherent subjectivity of deciding whether something has lasting impact or not. The closing statement also seems to me to be conflating WP:GNG and WP:LASTING to produce a new standard whereby events have to pass the GNG using sources published well after the event. WP:EVENT doesn't actually say this. Hut 8.5 12:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Much has been made out of the quality of the sourcing. One source in particular was this one from mlssoccer.com. While it was accepted that the content in that source was good, a question was made as to whether it was independent. This is probably a gray area, but the subject involved a team from the United States Soccer Federation, which is not the same as Major League Soccer which is a competition between clubs. Yes, there are significant ties between them (so this is a gray area), but it is certainly more independent than, say, a press release from USSF would be. In total I think the arguments in the AFD were roughly balanced, and reasonable people can disagree on the quality of the sourcing. Not all the "delete" votes were all that well reasoned either, for example "Delete, no evidence of notability" doesn't really contribute much to the discussion. Such a situation usually defaults to a "no consensus" closure, and there is no clear policy-based reason to overrule that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Huston (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore) 47.221.142.110 (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not clear what this is about. There was a Martin Huston page, which was deleted by MER-C about six months ago, for copyright problems. Can you clarify what you're asking? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmithThis page was deleted by a banned user -- BillyHathorn. -- There should be no copyright problems as this is an actors biography page. I am the son of -- Martin Huston (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

• Well, there's a bunch of different issues here. One is that, as you mention, the original article was written by a user who was banned for (extensive) sock puppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Billy Hathorn. I'm taking it on faith that you're not that same person, but in any case, if you're the subject's son, you have a conflict of interest which you need to publicly disclose on your user page. Note that we strongly discourage COI editing, and the disclosure is simply a minimum requirement, above and beyond the fact that it's discouraged. Next, most of the text of the deleted article appears to have been copied directly from https://completely-kentucky.fandom.com/wiki/Martin_Huston, which I assume is what triggered the original copyright violation complaint. Looking at the source page, I see it is licensed under CC-BY-SA, which in theory means you are within your rights to use it somewhere else, as long as you comply with the restrictions of CC-BY-SA. One of those restrictions is, per the CC-BY-SA license text, that you provide correct attribution. At a minimum, I would think that would be a statement on our talk page describing where you got the text from, and a edit summary which called attention to that. And, once we're past all that, there's still the issue that for us to have a biography of a person, they need to meet our notability guidelines, which in this case would be WP:NACTOR.

So, with all that being said, it seems to me that the CC-BY-SA licensing of the original text means deletion on copyright grounds was incorrect. Given that, I think we should overturn the deletion. But, keep in mind that this is a narrow opinion purely on the technical grounds of copyright issues, and it in no way implies that the article can't still be deleted for any of the other issues I've outlined above. Also note that I'm not a copyright expert; for all I know, the lack of proper attribution may be sufficient ground for deletion, despite the underlying CC-BY-SA licensing. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fandom wiki version postdates the deletion of this article by months, and its creation by almost nine years. What triggered the original complaint is that so large an amount of Hathorn's work here is provably copyright-infringing that it's unreasonable to think that the remainder is anything but more of the same. Endorse. —Cryptic 00:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble following the history here. I looked in the history of Wikipedia:Copyright problems around when this was deleted (2019-10-21T10:54:47) and don't see any mention of Huston. But, I guess this was based on WP:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors: If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed that all of their major contributions are likely to be copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately., a policy which I was previously unaware of. I've struck my previous comment. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's fourth from the bottom. —Cryptic 15:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic:, Hmmm. The organization here is confusing. I would have expected it to be listed on this revision, but it's not. Never occurred to me to look for subpages. But, whatever. I'm satisfied this was handled correctly. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the policy reason why I deleted that page. The ban for massive copyright infringement provides grounds for presumptive removal under this policy. MER-C 17:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore this was deleted as a (probable) copyright infringement, but it appears that the cited source was created long after the article, and is under a free license in any case. That means the deletion was invalid, and now that this is known, it should not be deleted without a valid specific and verified reason. The presumptive deletion when a contributor is shown to have commuted extensive copyvios here is within policy, and sometimes is the only way to handle such cases. But once a specific case has been investigated, ands shown not to be a copyvio, the presumption ceases to apply. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• A consensus exists that site-banned editors' contributions can be removed even if they appear to be productive. As I said at the time, I don't entirely agree with that consensus but it certainly exists. Therefore the deletion process has been correctly followed here.—S Marshall T/C 11:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in this case, S Marshall. That consensus refers only to actions taken after the ban (or block) is imposed, WP:BMB (which is being interpreted by the discussion you link to) says: ...even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community is perceived to pose enough risk...(emphasis added) It is clear from the text of that and related sections, and of WP:CSD#G5 that such deletions and reversions apply only to edits made while the banned user is banned (or blocked). But the article was created on 4 February 2010, and all editing by the banned user Billy Hathorn was done by 16 February 2010 while Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Billy Hathorn/Archive and the block log show that this user was first blocked in September of 2011, and first documented as a user of sock-puppets in October 2011, about 1 1/2 years after the edits were made to Martin Huston. That page is therefore not subject to deletion under CSD G5, nor as the work of a banned user, because the user was not banned when the edits were made. Which is probably why the deletion log cites copyright concerns, not the site ban. In addition there were a number of edits by good-faith users, but these might not have been substantial enough to prevent the deletion if the article had been created in violation of the ban and was being deleted for that reason. If this were a case of G5, that would have to be assessed. But it is not a G5 delation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article wasn't deleted because Hathorn was banned and socked. Hathorn was banned and socked because thousands of articles like this were identified and, abominably slowly, deleted. That someone, most likely him, responded by copying it somewhere else is in no way a reason to restore it here. Come on, you're smarter than this. —Cryptic 15:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that consensus does include edits made before the ban or block, because people are banned for being bad people who make bad edits, and those who participated in the discussion felt that once we as a community decide we don't have confidence in their contributions, then those contributions have to go.—S Marshall T/C 16:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • This consensus is in general. For users banned for extensive copyright infringement, it is explicitly policy. MER-C 17:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that even if this had been deleted as the work of a banned user, any editor in good standing could recreate the article, using the fan-wiki page which is under a cc-by-sa license, provided it was not done at the direction of the banned user, and the good-faith editor was convinced that there was no copyright issue, that the recreation was helpful to the project, and was willing to take responsibility for the edit. I would probably be willimng top do that, after checking for copyright issues further. So if no actual copyright issue exists in the text of this article as deleted, then it is still my view that the deletion should be overtur5ned and the content restored. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This outcome is specifically envisaged, and supported, by the consensus I linked to above. Therefore I would not object to DESiegel restoring this as his edit on the basis that he takes full responsibility for it.—S Marshall T/C 16:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD. An alleged copyright infringement that was debatable? Discuss at AfD and make a proper decision. Seven days of discussion of an available a disputed copyright infringement is not a legal issue, but if someone thinks it is, blank it for the duration of the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already had that. The venue for discussing possibly controversial copyright issues is Wikipedia:Copyright problems, where this article was listed for over seven days with a very prominent notice replacing the entire content. Nobody contested the deletion. MER-C 16:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am not entirely sure what the issue is. This appears to be an appeal of a copyright deletion, and I don't know enough to have an opinion, so I am not sure whether to Endorse or to have no opinion. I don't see any error. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Wikipedia:Copyright violations, which is policy (and a legal policy at that): If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed that all of their major contributions are likely to be copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately. Billy Hathorn is definitely one such contributor. This was deleted through the normal process of WP:CP, which is the proper process for copyright violations which don't qualify for G12 speedy deletion. I don't see any reason to overturn the deletion given here, the OP just says "There should be no copyright problems as this is an actors biography page", which doesn't make sense, biographies of actors can definitely have copyright violations in them. There is nothing stopping another editor from rewriting this page as long as they don't violate copyright. Hut 8.5 18:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lich (Dungeons & Dragons) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD was closed by a non-admin as "keep" despite numerous merge votes. Some of the keep votes were outright WP:JUSTAVOTE. Regardless of whether it was a WP:SUPERVOTE or just poorly interpreted, this discussion should not have been closed by a non-admin and certainly not like this. 🤷 _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Its odd this was even nominated for deletion in the first place as Zxcvbnm even says in the nom it should be merged into another article. Should have just been a merge proposal from the beginning instead of AfD, which means this wasn't even in the correct venue. Consensus seemed split at first until additional sources were added, after which there was a clear trend towards keep. Either way keep was the safe option and allows for nom to propose a merge in the correct manner. I recommended this as well to nom on my talk page reply here. What's a bit bothersome is that nom has now brought it here and still ignored the typical avenue of just proposing a merge. Their comment "It's more on principle" here leads me to believe this is more about winning than actually going through any of the standard processes WP:NOTCHECKMATE. I'm going to invite BOZ to chime in as they are both an admin and very familiar with this subject. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• My issue with the closure being keep is that merges can easily be WP:BOLDly reverted by almost anyone (and many merges I attempted to make have been in the past). Merge discussions can be short-circuited much more easily since no evidence of notability needs to be provided. Simply saying "I closed it as keep but it can still be merged" does not remove the need for an accurate close of the AfD. AfD is a much more final verdict on whether an article should be merged. In this case the article was non-notable, meaning an AfD was still a correct course of action._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure what the motivation here was on the part of the nominator, but I suppose it could have been relisted instead - it was trending keep, but you never know, I suppose? Just because most of the D&D AFDs have closed as delete or merge, does not mean all will. For example, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) from the same nominator we see a sense of certainty in the comment "The mentions of these creatures are, similarly to the now-deleted/redirected Gnoll and Lizardfolk, not enough to merit their own article" and yet that one was closed as an even clearer case of "Keep" than the lich AFD was. Some nominators will go to try to delete and accept a merge if that happens, rather than trying (and possibly failing) to get a merge. AFD is a way to not even bother with a merge discussion, and typically gets more eyes on it. That's just my observation. BOZ (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to merge, since that was the consensus. There's probably a D&D wiki somewhere that would want this content, though.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's already pretty fleshed out (pardon the pun) on FANDOM and various other D&D Wikis. There doesn't seem to be that much more useful information than is already there._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden sexual assault allegation (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was nominated for deletion today. A discussion was beginning, with delete votes, keep votes, and others complaining about the fact that it had just survived AfD as a "no consensus" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Biden assault allegation five days ago. Then, the nominator withdrew the nomination, closing it as a "speedy keep". Problem is this is in violation of WP:WDAFD, which clearly states: "If no one else has supported the deletion proposal and you change your mind about the nomination, you can withdraw it. ... If no one has supported deletion of the article you may close the discussion yourself as a WP:Speedy keep, or you may leave it for someone else to close the discussion." This cannot be withdrawn or a speedy keep. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm expecting there's WP:SNOW chance of this article getting deleted either of this is reopened or someone else nominates it later. So, I'd be fine with keeping the second AfD closed, but changing"speedy keep" to "withdrawn" as a more accurate description of what happened. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn clearly invalid closure. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There was no consensus at a well-attended discussion five days ago. What's changed since then? (If that's a stupid question, please forgive me: I'm not an American and I don't follow US politics because I find it so tiring.)—S Marshall T/C 22:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Definitely an improper closure. CBS527^Talk 23:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe just leave it - It might have been an improper close, but it was also a questionable open. Opening a new deletion discussion less than a week after the last one was closed was likely not helpful. Is it likely we are going to end up with consensus for deletion where the previous discussion failed? Or based on the comments that were made in this one before the impugned speedy keep? If it about the label, perhaps we change it to a speedy no consensus.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Change - per Darryl Kerrigans suggestion. Speedy no consensus or Speedy close. The re-nomination was too fast in the first place, re-adding it will only cause more headache for many.BabbaQ (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Or, at least, change to no consensus withdrawn. I’m generally in favor of IAR closes to save time, particularly for a withdrawal, and it will end with no consensus or keep. But, as to the question of what’s changed, this is a fast moving subject. And frankly, the article is poorly written and the TP is fraught with POV pushing on both sides. I’d let it play out, to bring in more observation if nothing else. O3000 (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfD1. Good close, could have been closed as a "rough consensus to keep"; could not have been closed as "delete". I think this is a good result, the topic is not going to go away, and preventing it from having a single main page of coverage would mean mentions appearing in many places. The topic requires considerably careful attention to WP:DUE and WP:BLP, as emphasized by the well written close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Fix the close of AfD2. It should not have been closed with the statement The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, but with Nomination withdrawn. The "keep" in "speedy keep" is apparently the problem. AfD2 did not find a consensus to keep. Standard moratoria should apply, a minimum two months before a WP:RENOM. If there are real content problems, use the talk page and normal WP:DR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikieditor19920 was not qualified to do the close. WP:SK did not apply. Have an admin re-close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Speedy close" per Steve Quinn below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix the close of AfD2. The AfD2 should have been closed, even if the close was done improperly, as it was too soon to open a new AfD. The AfD2 should not be reopened. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Fix the close of AfD2. Simple fix - Change " Speedy Keep" to just "Keep" Cox wasan (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It seems reasonable for a nominator to speedily close such a discussion to save us all from further wasted effort. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - The nominator cannot declare "speedy keep" for their own nomination nor can they withdraw it under these conditions as pointed out by Muboshgu. - MrX 🖋 14:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• While the nominator is strictly correct, having another AfD on this subject just days after a well-attended contentious one was closed with no new arguments is a bad idea, so I don't think we should reopen it. Wait a few weeks. Hut 8.5 15:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Fix the close of AfD2 - It indeed should've been closed, even if, as stated above, the close itself wasn't done properly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - While not a textbook-close of AfD2, I think AfD2 would have eventually reached the same conclusion as AfD1, and further discussion would just waste time. Essentially per WP:IAR. --MuZemike 18:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not going to weigh in with either an endorse or overturn because I can't figure out which outcome would be more absurd. I will, however, point out that I once withdrew an AfD nomination I had made, and the discussion then continued on to delete the article anyway. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  RoySmith Now that's funny! And a good one. It sounds like the topic in question caused an emotional response! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the AFD1 closure, Overturn the AFD2 close. Though honestly, I strongly believe this articles as a standalone is a blatant failure of BLP (when in combination with NOTNEWS and POV policy), and we need discussion elsewhere of why we don't create standalone articles when only "accusations" exist, regardless of media coverage and public-figure weigh in -we're an encyclopedia first and foremost. (If they were proven out, or were going into a court case, that would be something). --Masem (t) 21:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn AfD2 and reopen per WP:WDAFD. Or marking it as "Speedy close" is also acceptable given the circumstances (WP:IAR). "Speedy keep" is obviously inappropriate per WP:WDAFD and "No consensus" is a false outcome - so that cannot be. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't an admin just undo the close and let the AfD run? Why are we even here? (I voted in the initial AfD and I agree with Masem - very concerned about the fact we've been keeping articles that clearly fail WP:NOT because a large number of keep !voters cite WP:GNG.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-frame - I'm a bit with larry sanger: Wikipedia is at heart a bit flashmobocratic (my coinage, of course)---- what, with AfD's decided by admin roulette: some just counting noses; others try to figure out which side's arguments seem more cogent. Rather than have a page like this one deleted or kept by happenchance or whim, can't there be some kind of rhyme or reason applied? I propose in cases like the present there be something comparable to a "direct" or "automatic" legal appeal---- to wp's deletion review. When a legitimately sizeable minority or plurality of cogent observers feel there to exist on Wikipedia a point-of-view fork, how can an AfD close of "No consensus" (and hence defaults to Keep) be valid, according to WP's foundational principles? For example, ought the article "Armenian Genocide denial" be considered a POV fork to, say, that of "Military history of the Republic of Turkey"? Or – not? Maybe DR is where such cases as involve such articulate and passionate of competing antogonists ought to automatically be brought.

  (But, I'm beginning to repeat myself.) – My !vote is, in other words: Forget the obvious minutia of the present DR and instead invest into a spontaneous DR taking up the original AfD close of "no consensus (defaults to keep)."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AfD closure looks proper, was 18 to 38 per Sandstein's comments would just continue into a vote for president. Clearly there will be a significant group of people that support this topic, and today it has received much more mainstream press. No chance of deletion now. If someone really wants to delete, they can try a second nomination as well. Trying to overturn the closure on this is Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep closed but change result from 'speedy keep' to 'procedural close' or something along those lines. The closure-by-nom was improper, but it seems clear that reopening the AfD would only lead to more wasted time. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. WP:RENOM is not a guideline, even if it is good advice. As a matter of procedure, speedy keep by reason of withdrawal is invalid because of other proponents. --Bsherr (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  and I will add that I don't see how changing the close to just "keep" is appropriate. The discussion was not allowed to run its course, and I don't see any consensus for keep as opposed to no consensus. --Bsherr (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix the close of AfD2. Whatever happens, the article should remain and not be deleted. The left-wing media is even starting to have to cover the allegations because their cover-up of the allegations was so absurd and rife with cognitive dissonance. The jig is up.JimmyPiersall (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse or, let sleeping dogs lie. A nominator should have the right to withdraw their own nomination, and in this case I'm glad they did. The nom for AFD2 was untimely. There was no way that the community's consensus was going to change or develop in less than a week. Leaving the discussion open only wasted editor time and effort on re litigating an issue that had been beaten to death the week before. Now if we strictly look at process, sure the process was probably wrong: since some editors had voted delete, the nom shouldn't technically have withdrawn. But process for the sake of process is the very bane of Wikipedia. It was already apparent that the second AFD was not going to change the outcome. If we're doing process for processes sake, then it probably shouldn't have been opened in the first place. If we do anything because of this DRV, perhaps it would be to change the AFD2 close to Procedural close instead of a speedy keep, though I think that is also bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep closed - there are enough people that want the article and not enough that want it deleted. it is a newsworthy topic that should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToeFungii (talk • contribs) 05:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - there was a clear majority support to keep the article. BeŻet (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 'cmt w rgd original AfD's close- With no small contingent of wikipedians' reasonably argueing the article violated What-Wikipedia-is-Not (its providing a forum for advocacies, whatever their merits, & venue for trial-by-media absent due process, etc etc), How are WP's most basic principles upheld via the usual close in such cases of No Consensus Default to Keep"? Wikipractice ought be amended here, through, rather than keeping/deleting outright, its shifting the disputed page to draft space for a season until and if it gains actual consensus. It don't take no prognosticative genius to imagine how this issue's gonna reoccur quite often going forward and it would make for a marvelous precedent were this DR to institute this change in now, at least in my humble opinion.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Burn it all It's a story about an unwanted hand in a vagina, and its community refuses to admit "vagina" is the right word to describe what's under her skirt. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Alleged unwanted hand. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In our theoretical account of her story, sure, but in-universe, it's just there. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close per WP:IAR. Article easily passes WP:GNG now. starship.paint (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfD1; Overturn AfD 2 per WP:WDAFD; Or at the very least, change AfD2 to speedy close / procedural close. If this were a less popular/run-of-the-mill article, I would probably say leave it be; but with a presidential candidate in American news media, a lot can change in a week (so, in this case, I don't think the WP:RENOM "2 months" suggestion can be used as a blanket time period for every article). By the time this deletion review closes, it will be more than a week. And since there were immediate delete !votes before the nom withdrew, then obviously the community wants to continue the conversation. Especially since the first AfD was no consensus, I don't really see the harm in letting editors talk further - maybe there will be stronger consensus this time, and the discussion can be put to rest. - Whisperjanes (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and re-close procedurally invalid closure. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AFD1 - I encourage everyone to look at WP:SNOWBALL: If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. That page gives the specific example: "For example, if an article is speedily deleted for the wrong reason (the reason was not within the criteria for speedy deletion), but the article has no chance of surviving the normal deletion process, it would be pointless to resurrect the article and force everyone to go through the motions of deleting it again." Here we have, in my opinion, an exactly analogous situation; it might have been improper to speedy keep, but it's so obvious that the subject is notable and deserves an article that undoing the keep and forcing it to go through AfD will just waste time because the article doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted. Redoing this process is a waste of time. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kendall (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Chris Kendall is a popular public figure and should have a Wikipedia page. Cegguitar (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - the deletion request seem reasonable and the issue seem to be the lack of third-party sources. Also, a lot of admins disagree with you since the page is repeatedly created and deleted to the point that it is WP:SALTed to prevent creation. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just deleted the most recent recreation and salted it. Can you show that this guy meets the notability guidelines for people? If you can't then Wikipedia isn't going to have an article on him. Judging from the most recent deleted version he's a musician who self-publishes his music online, does gardening, wrote an app once and has "a newspaper" which I suspect is just a self-published website, none of that makes him a "popular public figure" by any means. Note the 2013 AfD appears to be about a different person. Hut 8.5 17:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not the article about the YouTuber? Same article space about different persons? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're different people, Cegguitar's version didn't mention YouTube and was about someone from Indiana, the YouTuber was from Yorkshire. Hut 8.5 17:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK so this is confusing. Are all the deletions done for the YouTuber or for the guy from Indiana? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 deletions are for the guy from Indiana. The 2015 deletions appear to be about the YouTuber but honestly the second one is too badly written to tell and was basically an attack page anyway. The 2012-13 deletions are about the YouTuber. The 2006 deletion was about a third person, an American electrical engineer. Hut 8.5 17:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There's really nothing here which demonstrates he's a "popular public figure" especially if we can't even figure out which one of him he is. Easy endorse. SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, undo salting. The justification for salting should be repeated creation of unacceptable articles on the same subject; here we have independent creation of articles on different subjects. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've had three deletions of articles on one Chris Kendall and five on another, either of those individually would be grounds for salting. There isn't anything stopping an experienced editor from writing an article here either. Hut 8.5 17:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Was determined to be not Wikipedia-notable. Very few YouTube personalities are Wikipedia-notable. Leave WP:SALTed due to the repeated re-creations. If anyone thinks the subject has become notable, use WP:AfC and the standard of evidence described at WP:THREE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Who? It is quite unclear who we're talking about. When I google the name, the top hit is an IMDB entry for a minor actor who seems to be yet another candidate. As the name seems quite common, it should not be salted. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Widely referenced NOPV pages for the two largest camera brands were deleted. (Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras being the other.) Both pages have been around for years as unbiased cross-references to DSLR features, and are referenced from many places within WP and thousands of pages across the web. They were in the same format that many other WP electronic tech pages use (e.g., List_of_iOS_devices, Samsung_Galaxy, Comparison_of_Google_Pixel_smartphones). These are competing brands, with features and histories objectively tabled the same way. So clearly not WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:FANCRUFT as argued for deletion. Digitect (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- Consensus to delete was clearly established at the discussion. "Comparison of XYZ" articles frequently get deleted, especially if they're badly sourced. I can't agree that the closing admin got anything wrong in this AfD. Reyk _YO! 06:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Temp undeleted For this discussion. WilyD 08:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The noming statement makes the point "no third party sources", which there were none, and none were presented. Frankly, the rest of the delete !votes are pretty rubbish, but tossing the headcount, the third party sources issue pretty easily carries the argument. WilyD 08:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with WilyD. Those delete votes weren't wonderful but the nomination statement was a killer: we need third party sources. I'm not entirely comfortable, though, with the way we're deciding that the inconsistency doesn't matter. There are indeed a bunch of other similar articles. Just down the page in the "Corona in X" discussion we've agreed that consistency is important. Why not here too?—S Marshall T/C 10:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WP:V we shouldn't have articles on topics for which there are no reliable third-party sources, and the responsibility for providing sources lies with the person who adds or reinstates the material. This is a deal-breaker in a deletion discussion, the only way an article can be kept if this is the case is if someone provides suitable sources. The other issues here are mostly judgement calls, but that alone is enough to justify the close. Hut 8.5 11:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The way to get this article restored isn't to point at other articles that haven't been deleted, it's to provide third-party sources. This shouldn't be especially difficult - many of the individual articles for the models linked from the list already have them (an example, picked more or less at random) - but it is labor intensive. If you're serious about fixing this, I'd suggest saving a local copy of the article now, while it's temp-undeleted; collect and add sources locally; ask for a restoration to draftspace when you've gotten a reasonable percentage of it done; and then ask for the AFD to be tossed out. —Cryptic 13:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There's really no other way the AfD could have been closed. Only a single argument to keep, and that was patently not in agreement with policy. The argument made there is that the page was WP:USEFUL. Of this there is no doubt. But, WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument for keeping an article. We live and die on sources, and this has none. On the other hand, anybody is free to take the text and (with proper attribution), do anything they want with it. I suspect it would be a welcome addition to http://camera-wiki.org/, for example. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• UndeleteComment This page is a summary of all the model pages, which are well sourced. Making footnotes here is redundant and obfuscating. I'm not sure why that isn't immediately obvious. Comparison is the whole reason the sorting table mechanism was developed and why it is widely used across WP. Deleting this page is inconsistent at best. It is suspicious that just these two pages were singled out whilst ignoring every other current camera and lens competitor using the same format:
  • List_of_Sony_α_cameras
  • List_of_Sony_A-mount_lenses
  • List_of_Sony_E-mount_lenses
  • Fujifilm_X_series#Camera_chronology
  • Pentax_(lens)#Camera_compatibility
  • Leica_Camera#List_of_Leica_lenses
  • Leica_M_mount#M_Mount_camera_bodies
  • Phase_One_(company)#Phase_One
  • Hasselblad#H3DII
  • Carl_Zeiss_AG#Z-series_SLR_lenses
  • Vivitar#Manual_focus_zoom_lenses
  • Lumix#Model_history

-- Digitect (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not singled out. Wikipedia is simply large and I don't have the capability to go through all the list at once. I have nominated some of the lists you listed for deletion. Thanks for bringing it up. Also, unlike some of the list listed, this list is a separate page and itself does not have any sources. Fujifilm_X_series#Camera_chronology, Pentax_(lens)#Camera_compatibility, Leica_Camera#List_of_Leica_lenses, Leica_M_mount#M_Mount_camera_bodies, Phase_One_(company)#Phase_One, Hasselblad#H3DII, Carl_Zeiss_AG#Z-series_SLR_lenses, Vivitar#Manual_focus_zoom_lenses, Lumix#Model_history are all merged with the main parent article and not a separate list. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Canon and Nikon are the two largest and have far more history and models. Okay, so is it photography in general where you're trying to delete these? Or electronics in general: List_of_iOS_devices, Samsung_Galaxy, Comparison_of_Google_Pixel_smartphones ? Or all of WP: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=comparison+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org ? Digitect (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem. The IOS list you mentioned does have sources so as the Pixel one. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Let the record show that the page had 1,394,082 total views, 24,458 monthly average lifetime, and 789 daily average the past year. It had 1,349 data points (19 columns x 71 rows) and was developed by users with 162 different logins over 11 years. Digitect (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Digitect: None of that has any bearing on whether we keep this as an article. Everything we publish in wikipedia needs to be verifiable. That's a core policy, and unlike notability, there's very little wiggle room. Quoting from WP:V: In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. For example, the deleted page claims that a 1DX has a Max ISO of 204,800. If I'm not sure that's true and want to verify it, I have no way to do so because there's no indication where that fact came from. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Every component of that table is derived from each linked model page, all of which are well-sourced. Digitect (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as closer: I would have no objection to restoring the articles to draft space for improvement, on the understanding that they would not be restored to mainspace without a consensus for such restoration. BD2412 T 17:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please clarify, does improvement constitute referencing each cell, each model (row), or some other means? If copying sources from all the individual pages, could we instead develop a WP template for the top description that clarifies the (to me, obviously implied) references back to the model pages? I'm the kind of editor that would take the time to go back through the constituent pages to copy references back here, but redundancy is a terrible method for maintaining accuracy and currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitect (talk • contribs) 17:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Improvement constitutes whatever is needed to gain community consensus that the article should be restored to mainspace. I will not be the one making that call. BD2412 T 18:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There's nothing defective about either the close or the discussion, especially referring to the lack of third party sources. I also want to note that I'm looking solely at whether the AfD should be overturned, but I also want to note the following if I were to review a draft of the article: my review of the article shows there's other WP:NOTs this page might possibly fall under, including WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and WP:OR, so I would hope these issues would be solved if draftifyed and restored. SportingFlyer T·C 23:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse - Correct close of an unfortunate discussion. I would have !voted Keep, but the close was correct based on the actual discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close in that there is consensus that it was not an OK article. Overturn to "Redirect to Canon EOS", due to the AfD nominator and AfD generally failing to comply with WP:BEFORE. Alternatively, WP:Draftify may be OK, except that the content is problematic with respect to WP:V and WP:NOR. The parent article, Canon EOS, already has the start of these problems, that article should be improved first, noting its current maintenance tag. Forbid a repeat WP:SPINOUT without explicit consensus at Talk:Canon EOS. Protect the redirect if required, but there is no reason to hid the history; WP:OR like this can be worked on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 02:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify, for better referencing. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist/draft/userfy The discussion was low quality but wasn't relisted even once. The topic is clearly part of a large set about this range of cameras and so it doesn't make sense to treat it in isolation without considering alternatives and compromises such as merger. See black and white thinking. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Low quality discussion, the one keep !vote was well-specified and considered whereas the deletes were one-liners. Second-choice to draftify and improve. As mentioned above, there are plenty of similar articles for this and other classes of consumer electronic devices and it seems silly to delete one for the second-best brand of camera whilst leaving the others. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Miracle (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hey I was wondering why the page for Singapore miracle was deleted, under reason its stated as speedy deletion due to g5, page created by banned user. Having read it I know that it is a factual and relevant page, and the fact it was created by a banned user doesn't make it qualify for deletion in imo. Sorry if this was addressed on the wrong page i don't really have any experience in regards to editing wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.10.18 (talk • contribs) 12:54, April 22, 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Fixed above nomination using template. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Besides being created by a banned user, and the dubiousness of an IP requesting a G5 review, this was copyright infringement of this page. It ain't coming back. —Cryptic 14:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Friends Characters.png (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

File:Friends season one cast.jpg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The non-free cast photo of Friends was deleted on the basis of WP:NFCC#1. A few of editors, including me, disagree on it at Talk:Friends#Characters image, which is closed as advised to review the deletion here. The deleting admin Explicit said that free images of actors would suffice or already convey. The other image File:Friends season one cast.jpg was orphaned and then replaced back in 2015 with the current gallery of actors. If the images are seen at photo agencies, like Getty Images, then they should be considered unacceptable per WP:GETTY. However, I can't figure out without seeing those photos first. Besides that, we would wonder whether that one or those both images should have been taken to the FFD in the first place to review its/their compliance(s) with NFCC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 09:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to Fastily, who deleted the jpg version for the same issue. ƏXPLICIT 11:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For reference, the deleted photo can be found on this website. The DVD cover of the final season shows what the cast looked like by the end of the series, and larger resolutions can be found online if you reverse Google Image Search it. There's a timeline of a decade at hand. We have freely licensed images of the actors within that range or taken shortly thereafter, which satisfy WP:NFCC#1, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Somehow, a small group of editors argue that readers are incapable of understanding the article with freely licensed images of the actors. Incredible. ƏXPLICIT 11:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the website, Explicit. I found the photo used at Hello magazine that (partially) matches the one at Getty Images. I would take that the image is unacceptable per NFC guideline and may not comply with WP:NFCC#2. Whether it passes or fails "no free equivalent" criterion would be overtaken by its potential failure to comply with "respect to commercial opportunities" criterion. George Ho (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtest ping to PhilKnight who deleted File:Friends season one cast.jpg as orphaned. Any surviving info about the image would help. George Ho (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found the article from the upload log. I could not find the exact photo at Getty Images. NBC is credited, but somehow the NBCUni Photobank locked its search engine from the general public. Well, the season one photo may be taken to FFD somehow. George Ho (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• List at FFD there is an argument that this isn't replaceable which is at least plausible, and speedy deletion is intended for obvious cases only. Hut 8.5 12:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Speedy and List at FFD - I was puzzled briefly as to what sort of request this is until I re-read the !vote by User:Hut 8.5, which explains it all. This appears to be an appeal of a speedy deletion, F7, and speedy deletion should be unambiguous, and questions about speedy deletion should go to deletion discussions, in this case Files for Deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• We have freely licenced photos of the actors who portray these characters. While it would be nice to have one photograph of them all in costume, the argument that we need one is untenable.—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It is very common for articles about fictional characters in TV or film to include a non-free image of the character. If an image of a fictional character can always be replaced by a picture of the actor who portrays that character, as the deleting admin is suggesting, then an awful lot of fair use images would have to be deleted. Now quite possibly the situations here are different and the image doesn't add enough to the article to warrant having a fair use image, but that's not a decision which should be taken by a single admin. Hut 8.5 18:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The speedy deletion was unambiguous. The deletion here is clear, correct, and based on a correct interpretation of our NFCC policy. SportingFlyer T·C 02:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• list at FFD. There is an argument that this meets our rules and as such there should be a discussion. Speedy deletion shouldn't shortcut reasonable discussion. Hobit (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• List at FfD. This will go to a discussion of the details of the image and its use. That discussion is best held at FfD. Any reasonable contest of most speedies should speedily go to XfD for discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• List at FfD. When there is a good faith objection to a CSD then it should almost always be speedily restored and listed at the relevant XfD page. In this case it is plausible that the image might meet the NFCC so it is ineligible for speedy deletion, regardless of whether it turns out the image does or does not meet the criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. If the images under discussion were ensemble shots taken from episodes of the TV series itself, showing the characters in context, I would probably still favor deletion, but a deletion discussion would clearly be appropriate. Here, however, we have a generic publicity photograph which does not show the characters in context -- indeed, they may never have appeared together on the show appearing in these forms. If the purpose of the nonfree image is to show how the characters appeared on the show, the image must be drawn from the show itself. These images simply do not meet the terms of their use rationales as described, so summary deletion is appropriate. (The analysis could be different, of course, if the characters in distinctive or period costumes, but that situation is not presented here.) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are all good arguments to present at an FFD, but are not relevant to whether the speedy deletion was correct - indeed the sheer amount of subjective decisions in that analysis rather proves the point that it was not an objective decision and thus not appropriate for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• List at FfD per the good points made above. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impact of Michael Jackson (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closing note as well as the subsequent discussion failed to find a rationale behind the close as "no consensus". The correct result of the AfD had to be delete because of the following reasons:

1. The article is a WP:POVFORK because all content already exists on Michael Jackson. Article violates WP:OR because of gross misrepresentation of sources and it reads like a total WP:FANPAGE.
2. Not a single !vote rejected the fact that the article is a WP:POVFORK, WP:OR and WP:FANPAGE.
3. "Keep" !votes only depended on WP:PLENTY, WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST and WP:Clearly notable.
4. Off-wiki canvassing and meatpuppetry is a established concern regarding this subject and this has view has been successfully established per this WP:AN thread.
5. At least 8/18 Keep !votes were made by off-wiki WP:CANVASSED editors who were not editing for weeks or months before the creation of the AfD.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] One "Keep" admitted that he was recruited off-wiki.[15]
6. On-wiki canvassing was also carried out by Keep supporters.[16][17]
7. One editor who voted for "keep", was calling every "delete" supporter a troll and accusing them of malice. He was topic banned.[18]
8. Many "keep" !votes were only spewing their obsession about Michael Jackson,[19][20] personally attacking editors,[21][22] bludgeoning,[23][24] and falsely accusing participants of racism.[25]
9. Not a single admin supported keeping the article but multiple admins like Neutrality,[26] Drmies,[27] supported deletion of the article.

Given all of the misconduct and clear-cut deceptive tricks performed by the "keep" votes, one can be easily convinced that not only the "keep" votes lacked any basis to debunk the nomination but demonstrated a lack of WP:AGF. With the formation of such a toxic environment, it must have either falsely convinced many of the editors to either suggest "keep" or just leave the AfD. Nevertheless, there appears to be enough support for the deletion. Excelse (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JG66:, what do you have to say about all that? For some obvious reason, Excelse has completely omitted the fact IP address 173.79.47.227, a brand-new user, only appeared on Wikipedia for that vote and did indulge in vote-canvassing . They've never ever posted anything ever since. (Their very first edit is a vote regarding the 'List of postal codes in Portugal'; that vote appears to only have been cast to avoid an accusation of WP:NOTHERE.)

Excelse is not assuming good faith, accusing many "Keep" editors of being SPAs or what not. The "Keep" voters made a very strong point as to why the article must remain, and serious, constant efforts have been made to improve the article—the article was greatly improved, all POV/puffery was removed, and the article is constantly being enriched and improved in tone, content and quality (and Michael Jackson has undisputedly had a tremendous cultural impact). There is therefore no reason whatsoever to delete it. Any call for deletion at this point, in my observation, is purely partisan. I have nothing more to add on this issue. Israell (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I, therefore, endorse the "no consensus" closure for the reasons I've listed above. Israell (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the "no consensus", easily defendable. There may be some useful advice at WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the no-consensus closure. I can't be bothered to follow a single one of the links Excelse provides above. I've seen enough of their so-called contributions here to know they'e very selective with the truth. Going back years, they seem to disappear and then reappear doing very little to article main space and, quite frankly, goose stepping around the place. And talk about a disingenuous report on the goings-on at the AfD ...
• An enormous amount of work has gone into improving the article – I did plenty – and plenty more can and should be done. Someone in the AfD said that they could see this article becoming an FA; I've helped get articles to FA (though I've never nominated myself) and I agree with that idea, and it was in my mind the more I helped expand the content. There are sources I didn't get around to investigating such as the Popular Music & Society articles we currently cite. I don't believe we're exploiting them anywhere near to their full potential with regard to this subject; and (no disrespect to others who tried to expand the article in the past) I think these opportunities have been wasted as keep editors may have been either too inexperienced or too fixated on establishing that Michael Jackson had a significant cultural impact, rather than building an article that discusses and explores this phenomenon. I found such missed opportunities in some of the more mainstream sources we use (a Rolling Stone article comes to mind) – it was astonishing how little we'd exploited these resources, given the statements they contain. Which is why with articles titles such as "Black or White? Michael Jackson and the Idea of Crossover", "Synesthesia, 'Crossover,' and Blacks in Popular Music", "Michael Jackson in/as U.S. Popular Culture" – all from Popular Music & Society or other journals currently in the Bibliography (but under-utilised in the text) – I'm confident that the article's got huge potential. I can't speak policy-ese and I don't wikilawyer, but it seemed to me then, as it does now in this review, that policy-ese and wikilawyering is all some people were capable of, and they haven't got a clue about writing an article or what actually constitutes a good (/Good/Featured) article on Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I count 22 Keep !votes and 16 Delete !votes plus the closer. If this were a vote, it would be either Keep or No Consensus. It is hard to make the case that the closer had an obligation to Supervote to Delete. Perhaps a closer could have reasonably discounted the Keep statements and found Delete, but this appeal requires a stronger finding that No Consensus was an error. I think it was the right close, but what is more important is that it was a plausible close. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Good close. No coherent rational for overturn has been given - instead there is an assumption of bad faith on the part of the nominator. The XfD closure was a proper reading. Lightburst (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, as someone who voted to Delete the article. Yes, a few Keep votes where probably canvassed and there were some truly awful arguments put forward, but there were also reasoned Keep opinions backed up by policy, and these were not refuted to the degree that a Delete close would have been appropriate. There were also several Delete votes that were pretty bad and did not cite relevant policy, so a No Consensus close was definitely the right choice here. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist: (edit conflict) Well I see an issue in the AfD is canvassing. Well if we relist it, we'll get more discussion because well, they've exhausted meatpuppets. In this deletion review and the closure statement, the closing statement was that further discussion will lead no where. In addition, the deletion review nominator is having civility issues and not WP:AGFing, and the keep !votes and the no consensus endorsements are about further improving the article, which is a fair alternative to deletion. On the other hand, the deleters and this deletion review nominator has all these policy related arguments, in which sure, if you believe policies are stronger than anythign else, then we must follow it. In this case, we have a neutral situation. A no consensus closure is a neutral close, but I think that a relist is the most neutral in this situation. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 01:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC); edited 01:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• We've now had two very messy AfDs centered on POVFORK grounds in the past couple weeks. In this case, you at least had a couple of !voters who argued against the POVFORK, and other !voters who said the topic would be notable. I'm not necessarily convinced the keep !voters had the stronger argument, but I also don't think this AfD could have been closed as anything but no consensus, so I'll go ahead and endorse the closure. The article looks to be a mess, so give it six months, see if it gets cleaned up, and if it doesn't try again per WP:RENOM. From a very high-level view - I haven't looked at the article, just read the AfD - I would assume the topic would be notable enough for an article if properly spun out from the main article, the very issue presented here. I'm also starting to believe that it doesn't matter if the deletion rationale is 100% correct, if it's a very technical deletion rationale such as POVFORK, it's going to be difficult to get an article deleted (I am NOT saying the deletion rationale here was 100% correct, I have no opinion on the matter - I'm just yelling into the wind based on a couple recent DRVs.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• ENDORSE Toughpigs found evidence that it passes the general notability guidelines. There were some valid KEEP articles, so no way this should've been deleted. NO CONSENSUS is an acceptable outcome. Dream Focus 18:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have a problem with this outcome, and it's the canvassing. Canvassing is not OK. It irretrievably taints our processes and I dislike it that the canvassing worked and won't have any negative consequences. What we normally do in these cases is to relist with a semi-protected AfD, and I commend this approach to you all as hugely better than turning a blind eye to the canvassing.—S Marshall T/C 20:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a fan of the canvassing either but I think it's still a no consensus even if you remove the canvassed votes - that being said, I have no problem with a protected relist. SportingFlyer T·C 21:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• question- is there a way of condemning the off-site canvassing and mendacious accusations of racism by many of the keep voters without necessarily overturning the AfD? I don't really care if this article stays or not. But I 100% guarantee that if I tried to secure a delete outcome on some AfD by recruiting friends off-wiki to come and vote, and started calling people racists, I'd get blocked for it and rightly so. Yet keep voters are apparently allowed to do what they like and say what they like about other people just because they're keep voters. That's bullshit and it needs to stop. Reyk _YO! 07:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose the closer could consider saying something like that in the closing statement, if we feel a bit of handwringing about it is really sufficient to satisfy DRVPURPOSE, point 5.—S Marshall T/C 12:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Keep - Keep arguments are based on policy and grounded in the actual articles, the "delete" position seems to be based on invoking policy pages they haven't read. The main Michael Jackson page has 77kb of readable prose, sub-pages are appropriate. If there's a POV being suggested here, I can't discern it, nor seemingly can anyone voting for deletion. If there's any OR/synthesis, I can't find it, not has anyone else identified what it is. There could be a few bits and pieces that could be, of course, but by and large it's a summary of what other sources are saying - i.e., it's an encyclopaeida article. WilyD 10:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page was dramatically improved in terms of neutrality and sourcing during the course of the nom, so that might be why some of the delete votes don't seem to correlate with the article now. Though personally I'd still vote to delete, for reasons that no one needs to hear right now, credit is due to those who improved it. If nothing else, nominating the article for deletion did cause it to rapidly improve! Popcornfud (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse No consensus is a reasonable call given the division in opinion. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Purdham (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Leo Geter (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Winifred Freedman (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Sources were provided in the AfD but had not yet been discussed by other users. The closing nominator, despite the one-to-one split in votes, determined that the article needed to be mandatorily deleted because IMDb was the only source provided in the article at the time—despite the fact that sources WP:NEXIST. If all articles with only IMDb as a source are to be mandatorily deleted, then there is no point bringing them to AfD first. The same occurred with the AfD for Leo Geter. I may have missed the boat with that AfD, but I was in the process of searching for, and found, sources. The vote there was one "delete" versus one "weak keep"; but the same rationale was applied—that the current state of the sourcing mandates deletion. As I say, such mandatory deletion would render the AfD process superfluous. I would request that the two articles, particularly Purdham's, be relisted so that editors can assess the weight of the sources. Thanks Dflaw4 (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment: I endorse my closure because I was not contacted prior to this review request. WP:BLPRS is clear that BLP articles must not exist if they do not cite reliable sources. It is true that it is enough for WP:N that such sources exist somewhere, but not for WP:BLP, because only the sources' citation in the article makes the article's contents verifiable to readers. This means that inadequately sourced BLP articles must be deleted at AfD irrespective of any mistaken "keep" opinions. AfD is not a superfluous process in such circumstances because it gives interested editors seven days' worth of time to find reliable sources and add them to the article. If you had done that, Dflaw4, you would have prevented the deletion of the article. As it is, you can request at WP:REFUND that it be userfied and then, with good sourcing added, restored via WP:AfC. Sandstein 11:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I followed the steps per the Deletion Review process, which requires me to create the review space here, then contact the closing administrator, which I did. I did not mean to offend you by not contacting you first, Sandstein; I was simply following the procedure. My issue with your deletions is that you didn't follow the consensus, but simply deleted the articles, despite the fact that I had provided sources for Purdham's article that other editors could have evaluated. I always add my sources to the article, provided the AfD is closed as "Keep" or "No consensus". It hasn't happened before, in the few months that I have been editing, that a closing administrator closes an AFD as "delete" simply because the article currently contains only IMDb as a source, without having regard to the AfD discussion or, as you put it, "irrespective of any mistaken "keep" opinions". (As an aside, I'm not sure that I agree that an opinion can be wrong—ill-founded or biased, sure; but wrong, I'm not sure.) Additionally, I note that you "relisted" the discussion on Winifred Freedman, and there, too, there are no sources apart from IMDb provided in the article, so I see this as inconsistent. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You are supposed to contact the closing admin before starting the deletion review request. Because AfD is not a vote, closers are required to weigh the merits of arguments in view of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thanks for pointing out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winifred Freedman, I have now also closed that AfD as "delete". Sandstein 12:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The procedure that I followed did not have contacting the closer as the first step. To endorse your closure because you were "not contacted prior to this review request" makes little sense to me. That was not meant to be an invitation to yet again disregard the consensus and close Winifred Freedman as "delete". I now request that that article also be taken into account in this review. Just so I am clear on your position, Sandstein, are you saying that, from now on, any BLP sourced to IMDb only, regardless of the discussion, the consensus, the votes and the identification of sources in the AfD, you will be closing as "delete"? Dflaw4 (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. BLP articles must cite reliable sources in the article itself; it is not sufficient that these sources merely exist. That is a matter of core policy, and cannot be overruled by a local consensus in an AfD. People who want to keep such articles must add sources to the article, not merely mention them in the AfD. Sandstein 12:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Sandstein. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist both David Purdham and Leo Geter, and for Winifred Freedman void close leaving the relist to end, or Overturn to no consensus. David AfD should be even a speedy one as the sources were posted and they now need their evaluation plus the closing comment makes no sense with WP:NEXIST. The Leo was a reasonable close with an awful weak keep WP:ITSNOTABLE that even helps the delete side by admitting the lack of sources. But someone said they have found sources and that should be honored. Winnifred AfD started to turn around since the Dflaw4's comment and again a closure ignoring WP:NEXIST. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Jovanmilic97. Please note that I am also requesting that Winifred Freedman be relisted, because Sandstein has just now deleted it following my comments above. There were arguments on either side there. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Done! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, much appreciated. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn David Purdham and Winifred Freedman to draftify, because: (1) plausible sources were produced in the AfDs; (2) once plausibly-sourced any user could move them back to mainspace on their own authority; and (3) it's apposite for us to assist content creators by making the task of adding sources and then reintroducing the articles as simple as possible. Endorse Leo Geter because no plausible source was produced in the AfD, but of course re-draftification should be mandatory on the request of any good faith editor who presents a plausible source.—S Marshall T/C 13:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. These are WP:Supervotes by Sandstein, especially after noting that the main “delete” !voter Johnpacklambert only ever !votes “delete”. Relist for more discussion. It is not good enough that AfD gets the right result, AfD has to be a community discussion that all participants, most importantly the newer ones, can understand. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftifying all three would be a reasonable outcome. The BLP arguments are overblown, the google cache versions show no BLP violations, there are no BLP problems that are not mere WP:BIO problems. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the close to userfy or draftify would be an acceptable outcome here. There are no BLP issue that prevent these pages being in userspace or draftspace while waiting for someone to add better sources. Imposing a time limit might be ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with S Marshall in the entirety but I'll technically endorse the closes instead of requiring them to be overturned to draftify as I think they were correct closes given the circumstances. However, these should all be able to be draftified on request. Restoring them to mainspace in their functionally unsourced, IMDB-only state makes no sense and would be a BLP violation, and it's possible these are all easily salvageable articles. SportingFlyer T·C 17:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for the ping. As long as someone is given a chance to draftify, I would go along with the closure as it was done. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have of course no objection to making the content available for improvement, although I would prefer that this is done in the userspace of a user who tells us that they want to source the articles. Otherwise we're just dumping BLP-violating (albeit likely not damaging) content into draftspace without knowing whether there is any prospect of it ever being remedied. Sandstein 20:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure the actual policy Sandstein is enforcing is WP:BLPPROD (in which case I think his decision follows the guidelines exactly as written). WP:BLP itself is of course about removing unsourced negative or contentious statements about living people from articles that aren't being deleted, except for the paragraph at WP:BLPDELETE which is a poor fit for the facts of this case.

  There's a lacuna in BLPPROD, in that it offers no assistance on the use of draft space for unsourced BLPs with potential. This is probably because (1) the genesis of BLP in its current form and all the unpleasantness with badlydrawnjeff preceded the implementation of draft space by a good five or six years, and (2) we so rarely see articles that are neutrally-written and easily-sourceable but not actually sourced after AfD.—S Marshall T/C 00:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If the articles are relisted, I will happily add the sources I have found to the articles and will inform other editors of this so they can appraise them. This should, I hope, placate any concerns with having the articles sourced to IMDb only. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm in the overturn to no consensus on David Purdham and Winifred Freedman and endorse on the other. I can't find a part of WP:BLPRS that requires deletion of the article. Plus the delete !vote in all these was very poor with no hint of an attempt at WP:BEFORE by that !voter or the nom. Hobit (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nominator Hobit - please withdraw your comment that I did not complete WP:BEFORE. I’m finding this more and more on AfD that as soon as someone finds one or two additional sources, particularly newspapers, there’s an assumption that the nom just didn’t bother looking at all. It’s really demoralising for a relatively new editor who’s trying to do things by the policies. It’s rude and I’m going to start calling it out more.Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy that mandates deletion of a BLP without reliable sources once it gets to AFD is BLPPROD. It's not in BLPRS. We're reaching the point where we'll need to consolidate our alphabet soup of custom and practice so you can find pointers to stuff where you look for it.—S Marshall T/C 10:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cardiffbear88 I don't think you indicated that you did a search. When you referred to secondary sources in your nomination, were you trying to say that you'd searched and found nothing? Hobit (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hobit in David Purdham nom - “No evidence of secondary sources to help improve the article.”; in Winnifred Freedman nom - “Some hits but nothing I could find that would indicate notability.” I would hope that would suggest that I’d searched before nominating. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't notice the comments in Winnifred, which is clearly my mistake. The "evidence of secondary sources" part wasn't at all clear to me you'd done a search, I though you were just referring to the article. I've stricken that, sorry. Hobit (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and allow recreation- BLPs need sources, that is absolutely correct and it is not a "supervote" to uphold this policy. If someone wants to write articles that actually include reliable sources, go for it. Reyk _YO! 08:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn David Purdham and Winifred Freedman because plausible sources (newspaper coverage) was explicitly provided in the AfD. WP:BLPRS doesn't mandate deletion in this case, it says the contentious information in BLPs should be removed unless it is well sourced. Frankly it's purely rules lawyering for the closer to close these as Delete on the grounds that the sources weren't in the article, it would have been less effort to add one citation to the article than to close the AfD as Delete, never mind defending it here. Endorse Leo Geter because nobody provided any reliable sources, this is a verifiability issue though and is also applicable to non-BLP subjects. Hut 8.5 17:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hut 8.5, I have to disagree with you that enforcing our BLP policy is rules lawyering. I will always delete BLP articles that do not cite reliable sources that support their content. "Just adding" a source to an article would be cargo cult editing and would make the article worse rather than better. Competent editors do not just add random sources to existing articles. They find and read sources, then write article content based on it, and then cite the sources. They do not haphazardly mash together sources and text that in all likelihood do not match up with each other. Even if I took some factoid from one of the sources in the article (e.g., actor X played role Y in 1951) and added it to the article with a citation, I'd be creating a Potemkin village of an article, giving it the impression of being based on research and sourcing, but I'd not have improved the actual unsourced nature of the remaining BLP content - I'd just have helped cover it up. The only proper thing to do would be basically to rewrite the article from scratch based on the newly found sources. And that can't be the job of an AfD closer. That has to be done by somebody who cares about the article topic and wants to cover it properly. If after seven days of AfD nobody has stepped up to that job, core policy requires that we remove the unsourced BLP content until somebody does a proper job of recreating or improving the article. Sandstein 19:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If that's your rationale for deleting the article then I think you've gone a long way beyond the bounds of what's acceptable for an AfD closer. By that argument even if the article was sourced - if the people who had provided these sources had added them to the article to support statements - then you still would have deleted the article as a BLP violation. Obviously you can have that as an opinion, but it goes some way beyond what the BLP policy explicitly says, and it's not something you should impose on an AfD as a closer. I don't see how Wikipedia would be harmed by adding a citation to a statement that "actor X appeared in film Y", and that's basically all these articles consisted of. Again please don't fixate on the fact that the article did "not cite reliable sources that support their content", because that's a trivially fixable problem. Deleting articles for trivially fixable problems goes against several policies, including the policy policy, which says that policies should be interpreted in accordance with common sense and basic reason. Hut 8.5 20:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, here we disagree. The problem is only trivially fixable by doing what I did - deleting the article. Properly sourcing a previously unsourced BLP article is anything but trivial, and saying that it is reflects disregard for the BLP policy. If during (or outside of) an AfD somebody does add sources to an article to save it from deletion then I do what we're supposed to: I assume good faith, i.e. I assume that they have done the necessary editorial work to verify at least the core statements in the article. But here nobody did that, and so we have no grounds on which to assume that anything said about these people in the deleted articles was true or sourceable. That's why they had to go until somebody does the necessary actual editorial work. Sandstein 21:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• But you didn't close the AfD as Delete because the article wasn't properly sourced, you closed it as Delete because it was unsourced, and that is a trivially fixable problem. The former would not in itself be seen as a valid deletion rationale at AfD. Even if you aren't willing to add the sources yourself the least you could do is to draftify the articles so somebody else could do it. Hut 8.5 09:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Sandstein, the articles did not have to go. And if you are arguing that the articles have to go until someone does the editorial work, how can that work be done on an article that is now gone? That would require the editor to start from scratch, which would be unnecessary and onerous. The point of the AfD is to determine whether the article is suitable to be kept or whether it is not suitable to be kept—and that decision is made by the editors who participate in the AfD discussion, not the closer. The closer is only meant to determine what the consensus is—not superimpose his or her own opinion. If you'd checked my history, you would have seen that I always add the sources that I find to the article after the close of the AfD, which should have given you some faith that I would do the same here. Alternatively, you could have simply asked me to add the sources to the article given your concern regarding articles that are only sourced to IMDb. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• S Marshall, the end of the AfD, however, is determined by the consensus—and there was no consensus reached in any of these cases. In fact, it seems that Sandstein was aware of that fact when he relisted Winifred Freedman (only to then delete it after I pointed out his inconsistency here). The sources that I provided, anyway, had to be weighed and considered by other editors; my opinion alone would not suffice to show that they passed GNG. Despite the fact that further discussion was needed to determine the strength of the sources, the AfDs were closed as "deletes". Dflaw4 (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Seven days is enough time to find and add sources to a BLP.—S Marshall T/C 11:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If people put as much effort into sourcing articles as they do arguing why they shouldn't have to, AfD would be a lot quieter. Reyk _YO! 16:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Dflaw4 found newspaper sources in two of the articles. The closing argument of "Salvageable or not, at this time this is a WP:BLP that cites only IMDB and no reliable sources. Deletion is therefore mandatory." Deletion is determined by sources found even if they aren't in the article yet. It does seem like a supervote for David Purdham and Winifred Freedman. Those should be overturned. Dream Focus 17:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw Leo Geter: If it will make things easier, I am happy to withdraw my review request for Leo Geter, given that I was too slow in taking part in that AfD. I still don't believe a "delete" result was appropriate over a "relist", given the consensus at the time, but I will withdraw it, leaving just David Purdham and Winifred Freedman. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the close as delete was quite simply the only option that would have followed the rules. If no reliable sources are added to a BLP, it must be deleted, and no reliable sources were added. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If no reliable sources are added to a BLP, it must be deleted

The policy behind this notion, repeated repeatedly by many, including the deleting admin, is WP:BLPPROD. However, this policy appears ambiguous, if not straight non-applicable, applying only to an initially completely unsourced BLP, which was not the case. The articles were sourced, but the sources are deemed unreliable. However, nothing was contentious. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (I !voted above). I'm a bit bothered by this whole thing. The closer claims that "WP:BLPRS is clear that BLP articles must not exist if they do not cite reliable sources." I'm not sure what part of BLPRS the closer is citing (and I don't think he's made that clear), but I don't see any language to that effect. S Marshall is citing WP:BLPPROD, but A) that process didn't apply (the article had a source) and B) it wasn't used so it doesn't apply--it has a particular process. I get the idea we need to source BLPs. That's right and good. But none of that appears to justify deletion in the face of consensus to keep. And don't chide someone for being unwilling to work on an article that's at AfD. Working on an article "under the axe" can be a frustrating thing--it's likely your work will be wiped away in a few days. Given we have an editor who appears to regularly source article after AfD, this was darn likely to get better sourcing. Just seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face. But in any case, there doesn't seem to be policy that requires this deletion and so closing it over the consensus of the AfD appears to be wrong. Hobit (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• BLPRS says: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". By nominating the article for deletion, all of its content has, by definition, become contentious. This would warrant speedily deleting a completely unsourced BLP article even at the start of an AfD, but a fortiori certainly after it has not been improved even after seven days of AfD. Again, people can userfy or draftify the content if they want to, and restore it after sourcing it. But it must not stay unsourced in mainspace. This is also an important incentive to editors to actually add sources to potentially viable articles, rather than just casting drive-by votes in the vein of "I found sources, so it must stay". Sources on AfD pages are useless to readers - only as part of the article do they become useful. Sandstein 11:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a huge stretch. If that were the case, we'd have a speedy criteria to that effect. And, by that argument, we wouldn't need BLPPROD, we could just speedy anything that had no sources. But we do. And it took a lot of discussion to get to that point. If you are certain that the article, in it's existing form, was eligible for speedy deletion, I'd urge you to propose it as a speedy criteria and list it at WP:CENT. You might even get consensus for that. But you don't have it now. Hobit (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• But, Sandstein, I didn't cast a "drive-by" vote in the vein of "I found sources, so it must stay". I actually provided the sources that I found and made them available for perusal. Hobit has hit the nail on the head, I think—and call it laziness on my part, if you like, but I don't see the point in sourcing a page if the consensus is to delete it. That is just a waste of time. I provided the sources in the AfD not because I was refusing to add them to the page, but to see what other editors thought of them and whether they passed WP:GNG. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there is a consensus emerging to reinstate in draft space. Established editors have told us that at that point they will source the articles, at which point they can be returned to mainspace. This is a more practical way of achieving the desirable result than the alternative of overturning the close and relisting, so we should proceed on that basis. Sandstein, the DRV instructions suggest that an editor consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer (emphasis added), not that this is a required step, so a failure to do so is not a basis for endorsing a close, especially when it's obvious that consultation would not have affected the closer's opinion. If you wish for consultation to be a mandatory requirement, you would need to open a discussion and seek a consensus to this effect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Newyorkbrad, I have no objection to proceeding in this way. You're right about what you write with respect to consulting the closer, but my personal practice is to normally endorse a closure by default (including my own) if the closer is not contacted before a DRV nomination. Others are of course free to discuss the review request on its merits nonetheless, and they regularly do. Sandstein 15:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closer's input on a DRV is valuable, and if the closer finds the arguments against the closure unpersuasive, he or she can certainly say so. But as a matter of wording and tone, I don't think that "I endorse my own closure" is the best way of putting it, any more than a blocking admin would write "I endorse my own block" on an unblock request. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn all. The closer's action was in fact a supervote, and should plainly be set aside. These biographies really do not include any genuinely contentious material or statements likely to be substantively challenged. In virtually all cases, the film credits are reliably sourceable/sourced to the film credits themselves, and should not be regarded as illegitimate -- this is far more reliable sourcing than we have for most most film/tv plot summaries, which are typically the impressions of individual Wikipedia editors, and infinitely better than the absurdly tolerated practice of allowing BLP content related to reality tv personalities to be based on editors' memories of tv episodes which are often themselves quasi-fictional. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, despite the recent clueless jihad of some editors to make "celebrity journalism" the dominant mode of covering actors, musicians, and related creative arts figures. Encyclopedia users are better served by articles like these, which provide basic biographical information and identify the subject's professional credits, than by ones which focus on the subject's sex lives, self-promotional gestures, and public embarrassments. Encyclopedias are supposed to be encyclopedic, including comprehensive, and the zeal that so many boneheaded editors have for purging the site of subjects who had unremarkable personal lives does more damage to the project in the long run than transparent schoolboy vandalism, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I have suggested that we could get the material back into mainspace by a different procedural route, I agree with the thrust of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not. Apart from containing personal attacks against unspecified editors, which is inappropriate under all circumstances, these comments miss the point. They focus on the encyclopedic merits of these articles. These merits (or the lack thereof) are not the grounds for the deletion at issue. The lack of cited reliable sources is. I thought that it should be uncontroversial in 2020 that Wikipedia does not allow unreferenced BLP articles in mainspace. Evidently I was wrong. Film credits are primary sources; they can support at best a particular entry in a filmography,. but it is inconceivable to write a whole biographical article based only on film credits. Sandstein 09:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see how a remark is a personal attack if you can't tell which person it's targeting?—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • SMarshall, Sandstein, Newyorkbrad I’m the original nominator of these three articles. Assuming that I’m one of the “boneheaded editors...purging the site of subjects who had unremarkable personal lives”, I found it pretty offensive and insulting. Once again, I nominated all three in good faith after completing WP:BEFORE. I’m thinking of getting T-shirts made with that on, as I’m having to remind editors constantly at the moment to WP:AGF. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Cardiffbear88: et al.: To be clear, my agreement was with the substance of HW's comments about the BLP issues and sourcing. I wouldn't have expressed those thoughts in the words that HW used, and I have no doubt that everyone in this discussion is acting in good faith for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I find that there are a lot more complaints of this sort on Cardiffbear88's user page where they also explain that they are currently working on Category:Articles sourced only by IMDb. Looking at how that's going, I find that the most recent example is M. R. Acharekar. In that case, Cardiffbear88 removed the {{BLP IMDb-only refimprove}} tag, replacing it with an {{Unreferenced}}. This doesn't seem to be an improvement as the IMDB tag was more specific and the net effect on our backlogs was zero. I had a look for sources and, within a few seconds, found a respectable entry in the Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema. The problem seems to be a focus on nominal backlog reduction rather than article improvement. See the McNamara fallacy. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Andrew you are taking one example out of context, where I felt vastly underqualified to help and so tagged this with a tag I knew would be more regularly checked by experienced editors, rather than languishing for decades like the IMDb backlog, which is shameful. I’ve added reliable sources to hundreds of articles, and nominated those for deletion (about 10%) where I couldn’t. I’m not saying I’m a perfect editor, but do you think the comments that I’ve collated on my talk page are acceptable for someone who is trying to help in good faith? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Currently, the {{BLP IMDb-only refimprove}} tag appears on 286 pages while the {{unreferenced}} tag appears on 216,183 pages. Moving an article from one backlog to a larger one is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. All such tags tend languish for decades because most readers ignore them per banner blindness. As they are of no value or interest to our readers, they are purely a bureaucratic overhead. If they made our work more efficient they might be useful but I am not aware of any supporting evidence and cases such as this indicate otherwise. It's the tags that need deleting, not the articles. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Andrew again, you are taking one example out of context. But are you now suggesting that we don’t need tags at all, and they serve no useful purpose? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The context for this discussion is that Cardiffbear88's attempts to clear the IMDB backlog seem to be annoying lots of editors and it is not clear that this work is productive. As it's the existence of the tag that is generating such vexation then, yes, I think this tag should be deleted. See purple crocodile. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn all Sandstein based his verdicts on a supposed doctrine that "deletion is therefore mandatory" but that's not what WP:BLP says. BLP's concern is contentious material but appearance in popular shows such as B5, Seinfeld and X-Files does not seem contentious as this is a matter of public record and does not seem disputed in cases such as Purdham. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benno Bikes (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Consensus misinterpreted, should not have been Keep, should at least have been No Consensus, closing admin essentially applied a SuperVote (see discussion on BD2412 Talk page). (I !voted Delete at the AfD) HighKing⁺⁺ 13:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The early delete !votes were placed before new sources were added. Then more sources were added and the discussion leaned toward "keep". Your long argument for deletion was detailed and clear and made a number of strong points (though I very much disagree with a few of them, they were none-the-less reasonable). I think No Consensus was a better reading of the discussion, but I think given the WP:HEY nature of the discussion and the nature of the sources that keep was probably within discretion. So weak endorse is where I end up. If this were brought back to AfD in its current state, I've every faith it wouldn't be deleted. Hobit (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you - I've no doubt if it was brought back to AfD as it is, it would still have zero references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also, I've no doubt that if the 4 Article Rescue Squad participants who vote en-bloc (and let's call it what it is - a form of organized meat-puppetry) didn't !vote, it would fail. This level of participation by these organized editors is designed to skew consensus (and it obviously works too). I whole-heartedly acknowledge the article was expanded during the AfD but this is a pretty useless activity unless notability has been established. Finally, nobody voiced any disagreement with the analysis of sources - you say you disagree and I am genuinely interested if you can point to anything I got wrong. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong? Probably not. I just think that we don't need proof that a news article did independent research on a company for a sources to count. I can see your point there, but I don't think that's a realistic bar. And my sense is that in many of those articles the authors did evaluate the products of the company. I think the vast majority of randomly selected AfD participants would find the sources above the bar. But I'm fairly inclusionist, so maybe my bias is showing. But I'd certainly !vote to keep. 21:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment as closer. Quite frankly, this kind of discussion is not the best use of Wikipedia's resources. However, there are many worse examples of that, so I will spend some time on this one.

The outcome with respect to the existence of this article will not change, nor will any future change to the article (or effort to delete the article) be allowed or foreclosed to by it. As an administrator, I make a point of occasionally trying to close some of the more contentious discussions, the ones other administrators may look at and say, "I'll leave that to someone else". I try to be that someone else. At any given time on Wikipedia there are thousands of discussions needing closure, and closers can't write a dissertation explaining the rationale for each of these.

In this case, I reviewed the discussion, immediately noted the struck vote and the IP vote, but also that there were participants on both sides of the question who were experienced editors who have a clue about the meaning of the policies in contention. I checked the situation with the struck vote, and the edit history of the IP, and confirmed that both should be disregarded. I noted that most votes to delete came at the beginning of the discussion, that the edit history of the article showed was substantial improvement made to the article a few days into the discussion, and that four out of the last five votes following that improvement activity were for keeping the article. I did all of that within the first minute of landing on the discussion. I have been doing this for fifteen years, and have closed thousands of discussions; these steps are instinctive. Based on this review, I found that the consensus over the course of the discussion was to keep. While another administrator considering the same factors could interpret things differently, I would disagree that my close would be characterized by an neutral and experienced eye as "consensus misinterpreted". BD2412 T 15:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Response I applaud admins who try to go the extra mile but I would like to think that you should also applaud editors who do the same. I tried to engage on your Talk page but it was clear that you had no immediate and clear answer. From the off, you created new arguments which had not been presented at the AfD (SuperVote behaviour anyone?) and when pressed further you essentially said "suck it up or go complain at DRV". So here we are. It is also clear to me, based on the reference you provided on your Talk page, that you are prone to misinterpreting NCORP guidelines as the reference you provided fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

I too have been "doing this" for 14 years and these days I am almost exclusively working on AfDs for companies/organizations. I too have participated in thousands of discussions and I spent the guts of an hour looking at the article and at all the references in order to provide a detailed rationale for Delete. Also, the approach I take is really very simple. I look at the references, that's pretty much it. The WP:NCORP guidelines are very clear on the requirement for multiple references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and even right now, not one single reference has been produced that meets those guidelines nor were are responses or rebuttals made to the analysis. Look, I'm not going to beat this to death, but taking into account the lack of any Keep !voter arguing the merits of specific references to establish notability (and even ignoring the en-bloc !voting of the Article Rescue Squaddies) this one just doesn't add up to a Keep if we're doing this correctly. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • • You seem to be relitigating the AfD rather than the close. There is, therefore, nothing here to which I can respond. BD2412 T 16:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, just responding to one or two points and providing some clarity about NCORP which (in my opinion) is pertinent and hopefully someone will take up the point about the lack of references and provide a coherent response (maybe even provide a link to one?). I don't think I'm looking for someone to go the extra mile by pointing our that the basic and most fundamental aspect of notability discussions at AfD can be easily resolved by agreeing on a references that meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I probably would have closed this as no consensus. Numerically the !votes are split and all but one of them is policy-based. Fundamentally there is no agreement on whether the sources meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. But it's reasonable for BD2412 to have weighed the keep arguments a little stronger, and the outcome is the same anyway. I can't imagine anyone uninvolved would see it as a consensus to delete. – Joe (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not looking for it to be deleted. The outcome isn't the same - I'm looking for the close to be changed to "No Consensus" so that when/if it is brought back to AfD, it can be brought back quicker and new editors will not see a previous AfD closed as Keep. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• You could reasonably contend that BD2412's close was wrong, but I don't think you can reasonably contend that it was a supervote. That's definitely not a supervote. That's a closer evaluating what the community has decided, not a closer deciding they know better than the community. The debate itself is somewhere on the continuum between "no consensus, leaning towards keep" and "keep, leaning towards no consensus". I can see the case for "no consensus" but personally, I'm disinclined to overturn it.—S Marshall T/C 16:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sympathetic to the requesting user - there's nothing worse than having an AfD hijacked by inclusionists who may be making less than rational arguments - but simultaneously, a rational argument one can make to save an article is to improve it beyond any doubt of WP:GNG, which may have been what happened here. Looking through the article as it currently stands, that seems to be the case. I don't see anything here which on its face would cause me to suggest it should be deleted in the future, but I also haven't reviewed any of the sources closely. Perhaps it's possible this does fail WP:NCORP, but it also currently passes an eyeball test. I probably would have closed as a no consensus based on HighKing's analysis of the sources provided, but I see no reversible error. Wait a few months, do a thorough source analysis, and renominate if you feel strongly about it. SportingFlyer T·C 23:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - As the closer says, it was on the edge between Keep and No Consensus, so that Keep was a valid judgment by the closer. I won't bother to explicitly concur with other editors who say the same thing differently. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closer indicated the marginal nature of the decision and that seems fair enough. The main point of AfD is to decide whether to delete or not. Other outcomes are a matter of ordinary editing and so DRV need not waste time on such hair-splitting. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse And WP:TROUT HighKing for wasting everyone's time asking for something that would have no change to anything at all. He even discussed this on the talk page of the closing administrator first User_talk:BD2412#Benno_Bikes then decided to drag it here. Dream Focus 04:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it that the ARS (Article Rescue Squad) bandits are like buses and several always pop along at once? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was pinged to the administrator's talk page where you were talking about me. That's how I found my way here. I assume the other two just checked the AFD and saw it was now at deletion review. Most people who posted here are not in the Article Rescue Squadron. Dream Focus 14:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, it was not ready to be closed, User:HighKing's 16:40, 8 April 2020 !vote was thorough, persuasive, and arguable refuted the strongest "keep" !vote by User:Lightburst at 22:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC). User:7&6=thirteen's strong opinion is clear, but is argument is more rhetoric than substance. To make a decision, a thorough analysis of each of User:HighKing's source analysis is required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take issue with the idea that it "was not ready to be closed". Even though the discussion was not relisted (for which there is no entitlement), it was opened on April 1, and closed on April 12, so that it already had run for more than one-and-a-half times the length of a normal AfD. The last comment prior to closure was on April 9. The discussion was fallow, and closure was due. BD2412 T 15:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, SportingFlyer's "Wait a few months, do a thorough source analysis, and renominate if you feel strongly about it." is a good approach. If user User:HighKing would renominate with a more convincing source analysis, I think it could be productive in producing a consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse No compelling reason stated. No do-over is required. Being strident, engaging in unwarranted personal attacks and aspersions (cf., WP:Civil), and filling a lot of space is no reason to give this the time of day. Trying to placate him is no reason to do anything at all. If all !votes were counted at the AFD, it was 7 Keeps to 4 Deletes (including highking, who burnt through lots of type). His words are smoke, not Ipse dixit here.

Although it doesn't really matter – I have every right to be here – I was pinged here by User:SmokeyJoe. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Good close. Full disclosure: I nominated the article for rescue, and I also spent time adding news sources to the article. I agree with BD2412 that this deletion review is a waste of valuable editor time. Additionally the High King is wrong to constantly attack the members of a group which endeavors to improve articles. WP:TROUT to the High King for this deletion review and for their WP:UNCIVIL unwarranted personal attacks and aspersions and violation of WP:5P4. This particular article is an excellent example of editors working together fulfilling the original mission of Jimbo Wales. This is a notable bicycle manufacturer based on our guideline of WP:N and our policy of WP:V. Lightburst (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corona in sweden (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Corona in norway (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Corona in Germany (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Corona in Italy (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Corona in Finland (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Corona in the United States (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Corona in Europe (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Corona in India (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Corona in England (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Corona in Canada (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Corona in Spain (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Corona in France (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Corona in South Korea (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Corona in Sweden (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Corona in Australia (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This DRV is a bit unusual, in that I am not asking for a review of the closer's decision (in fact I am one of the closers), but rather a review of the consensus formed in two of the discussions involved because they are inconsistent with each other. I recently closed an RfD which had a clear consensus for keeping "Corona in X" style redirects, despite a previous RfD being closed by BDD with a clear consensus to delete. I don't really care what happens, as long as we maintain consistency (or plausible arguments are presented as to why consistency should not be maintained). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the disparity in results can be explained as a result of different editors participating in either discussion. While there were some edge cases, for the most part all editors, whether voting for keep or delete, intended their vote to apply to the entire class of Corona in X redirects, rather than one batch versus the other. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, which is why we need to bring everyone together for one big discussion. This result cannot stand. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletions Although DRV is not supposed to be for relitigating the XFD, we really have no choice here. Both closures interpreted consensus correctly, yet those consensuses are clearly inconsistent with each other. In such a case, we do need to relitigate the RfDs to determine which one reached the correct conclusion. In this case, I think it was the one that was closed as keep. As others have mentioned, these redirects are cheap and useful, and it's really implausible to suggest they could refer to anything else. If there is another vaguely plausible target (someone suggested Corona, California as a stretch for the US one) that can be indicated by a hatnote, since this is clearly the most plausible target. Smartyllama (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Changing !vote to Bundle all and relist more as a procedural thing than anything else, to get it to the proper venue. Smartyllama (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not buying that the key piece of evidence raised in the keep argument in the discussion, the high pageview count for these redirects, is actually indicative of anything. If the data was from searches for the term before the redirects were created then I would agree that it's evidence that they are useful, but right now we're in a situation where these redirects are crowding out all of the redirects and articles with the correct titles. I think that crowding out the more correct search terms is a detriment to our readers beyond the question of whether the redirects are cheap or plausible. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• bundle all and relist I don't think DRV is the right place for this. I'd say group them all and list at RfD. Consistency isn't required, but it is nice. I'm personally mixed on this. My understanding is there is some evidence the redirects are used, but I suspect in 5 years it's unlikely people will all just assume that the redirect goes to where it does. Hobit (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Serious question: Why does it matter if we're inconsistent? Wikipedia specifically chooses to be inconsistent in deletion decisions: that's literally what WP:OCE means.—S Marshall T/C 21:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  A frequent misconception of WP:OCE is that inconsistency should be allowed to happen for no good reason. Rather, the point of OCE is that you shouldn't make arguments based on another case even though there are substantive differences between the two. But here there is no difference between the two batches other than the !voters who happen to show up. We can't be making decisions simply by luck of the draw, of which pages get nominated in which batch and which !voters show up to each discussion. Therefore, consistency is a valid argument in deletion discussions that must be refuted by an explanation of why the cases are not comparable (which is usually easy to do in "what about X" AfD discussions). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid that don't agree that it's a misconception. I think inconsistency is specifically allowed even where there aren't substantive differences between cases, and we specifically say so, a couple of paragraphs below OCE (at WP:AON).

  I'm entirely sympathetic to what you saying here: I agree that our decisions should be predictable and consistent. The fact that they aren't consistent is a matter that I've found quite difficult in the past. But we absolutely do make decisions by the luck of the draw and based on the !voters who happen to show up. We totally do. And we have our John Pack Lamberts who usually vote to delete and our Andy Dingleys who usually vote to keep, and sometimes, the JPLs outnumber the ADs and sometimes it's the other way around.

  This is a feature of the way we make decisions, and what you're seeing is how Wikipedia looks to a complete newbie.

  I also think that Wikipedia as a community hasn't decided how to respond to COVID-19. We probably need a great big centralized discussion on how to handle it, and if we'd had that we'd have some principles to inform our decisions.

  But if I was Supreme Dictator of Wikipedia we'd have kept all those redirects, because how the hell is deleting them supposed to help anyone? Therefore if the closer of this DRV finds that inconsistency is a factor in deletion decisions, then they should understand my !vote as an "overturn all to keep".—S Marshall T/C 00:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the difference between this case and your JPL/AD example is that when participants in these two RfDs were not !voting to keep or delete specific redirects; they clearly intended for their rationale to apply to all "Corona in X" type articles. In the spirit of WP:NOTAVOTE, we can pretend like all the participants in the first discussion also participated in the second discussion and vice versa. While you might be able to predict with high confidence how certain AfD participants will !vote, you can't literally copy-paste their rationale like you can here. You can think of a mass deletion nomination of a cleanly defined set as a less WP:BURO version of proposing a new WP:CSD criteria: if consensus is achieved, then everything in the category becomes delete-on-sight. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm also a bit concerned that inconsistent decisions seem to matter when they're raised by someone with a signature we recognize, but aren't an issue at all when they're raised by someone who registered their account the week before last.—S Marshall T/C 16:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's a fair concern. That said, these two, more than almost any discussion I've seen, really do stand at odds with each other. There is nothing I can see about the specific redirects in any of the discussions. And in this case, we have a fairly simple solution--send it back to RfD to get a consistent answer. I think I'd have !voted the same way no matter who brought this forward. Hobit (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist All - My first thought was to Endorse the more recent Keep closure and Overturn the less recent Delete closure as consensus can change, but on further thinking the best answer is to Relist All, in a bundle, and possibly request Centralized Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Bundle all and relist. Consistency is important. Not absolute, but important. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm on the undelete, bundle, and relist train as well. This is not an instance where we should ignore inconsistent closes, as the deleted and kept redirects are functional equivalents. SportingFlyer T·C 03:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Bundle and relist (I'm the delete closer.) I guess I'll just echo others and say that while consistency is valuable, it's not a requirement. Let's give it another shot, keeping in mind there's a possibility that there will be some sort of split decision, and that that's ok. --BDD (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bundle and relist- Consistency, although not mandatory, would be good. And a centralised discussion would be better than, say, picking one of the AfDs to nullify arbitrarily. That would be insulting and annoying to all the participants. Reyk _YO! 17:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Bundle and relist the reason we aren't usually keen on arguments that something should be kept/deleted because something else was deleted/kept is that there may well be differences between the two cases. Here there are none, the issues are exactly the same, and it makes sense to deal with them in the same discussion. Hut 8.5 17:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Close this futile discussion. What will happen to redirects that have not been previously considered like Corona in America (or if it is later sent to RFD)? What will happen in a month's time if I create Corona in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines? We'd need three teams of three admins following a centrally advertised RFC to sort it all out. Thincat (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, we'd have pretty good precedent to fall back on in that situation if we go with the bundle and relist option. Not a slippery slope, and, arguendo, even if it is, it's not a very important slope. SportingFlyer T·C 04:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. The first RfD failed to achieve precedent, as the second RfD clearly showed. However, with all the attention it's getting now, third time's the charm... honestly I expect any future cases to just cite precedent and the closer to disregard any comments that refuse to drop the WP:STICK, whichever direction it may be in. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

iPhone SE (2020) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD was non-admin closed as Draftify for both nominated articles (IPhone SE (2020) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and IPhone 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), and the remaining redirects (approximately 7-8, see list at original AfD) were left but retargeted to iPhone by the closing editor.

• Endorse iPhone SE (2020), Overturn and Delete iPhone 12, Delete all redirects. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close. The consensus was clearly for deletion, but in most cases moving to draft is equivalent to deletion; the article no longer exists in mainspace. Retaining it as a draft simply implements the courtesy we extend to all editors to request that deleted content is made available to work further on. Creating redirects from deleted articles is also sensible and within the closer's discretion. If you really object strongly to their existence, I'd suggest nominating them at WP:RfD. – Joe (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you know what WP:DRV is for? Because you lead out with "consensus was clearly for deletion", but instead of using one of the options available at DRV ("overturn and delete"), you recommend a run through WP:RFD instead? —Locke Cole • t • c 13:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  AfD is for deleting articles. When there is a consensus to delete, that's what it is – a consensus to delete an article. It doesn't mean the content can't be reused outside of mainspace, or that the title can't be a useful search term for our readers. I don't understand why you are making such a great effort to expunge this content, especially since almost all the participants in the AfD agreed it would likely be a notable topic very soon. – Joe (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Joe. Redirects, particularly, are inexpensive. ——SN54129 18:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  So consensus be damned. This is why I dreaded coming to DRV. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want redirects deleted, take it to WP:RfD. That was the wrong forum for the deletion of redirects. Hobit (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  So two separate discussions was the proper course of action, even though the redirects pointed to the articles up for deletion. WP:MULTIAFD is bullshit? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Am I missing something? I think that link is only for articles, not bundling articles and redirects for deletion. The deletion criteria for each are quite different and I don't think I've every seen a bundled AfD that included redirects. Hobit (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It uses the term "article" in some parts and "page" in others. My impression was, for discussions on related topics, it was best to keep the discussion together rather than having many separate discussions. And again, in light of the fact that they were redirects to the offending articles, this made sense. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see that reading, but I don't think that's how things are done in practice. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close but perhaps I'm missing something. I'm honestly not sure what the nom is asking for here or why. Do you disagree with having the draft exist? If so, why? And why do you feel the redirects should be deleted? Is it harming Wikipedia in some way I'm missing? WP:CHEAP is a pretty good summary of the general consensus on redirects. Hobit (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm honestly not sure what the nom is asking for here [...] The non-admin closure was inappropriate. The discussion was definitely a [c]lose call [or] controversial decision [...] better left to admins., and the editor who performed the close did not limit their close to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement (in this case, the redirect deletions which would have been deleted per WP:CSD#G8 at the end of the discussion. [...] or why. Well, I tried to get an administrator to look at the non-admin closure at WP:AN, however, two administrators indicated they did not have the authority to review a non-admin closure. With that new information in-hand, I removed the statement from WP:NACD that says an administrator may reopen a closed discussion, whereupon I was reverted by @Joe Roe:. A discussion took place at the talk page there, I started this DRV, and eventually the administrator who closed the WP:AN discussion reopened it. I again asked at WP:AN for an uninvolved administrator to review the non-admin closure, but then Joe Roe unilaterally decided to end the discussion AGAIN after having !voted here. What I REALLY, REALLY want to know is, why did I waste a week of time following this discussion, making arguements, and so forth just to be told here that "nah fam, redirects are cheap, don't worry about it". The whole point of the AFD was WP:CRYSTALBALL/WP:TOOSOON and the discussion included the redirects per WP:MULTIAFD. I was even told during the AFD that nominating the redirects wasn't necessary because WP:CSD#G8 would take care of them, but then we got a non-admin closure who wasn't technically capable of performing the close properly. That... curious editor, is why we are now HERE. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, thanks for the background. That run around is clearly a problem. But a few other things: The redirects are perfectly reasonable as far as I can tell. Even if they'd gotten deleted, someone else could have redirected them to iPhone and that would get you in exactly the same place. And sending an article to be a draft doesn't seem unreasonable (and WP:SOON hints at that being the right thing to do in this case). So as much as I agree the process has sucked, I really do think we are in the right place. If you feel we aren't in the right place, take the draft to MfD and the redirects to RfD. I think both would be kept, but that is the next step from here IMO. Hobit (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I was under the impression one of the outcomes at DRV was "overturn". In so much as the redirects are concerned, it's crystal clear there was consensus to delete (one of the !voters even came back to add to their comment to explicitly include the additional redirects I added after they'd initially !voted). I could go and spend a week at RFD, or DRV could stick to the consensus that existed at AFD... as I said at WP:AN, I'm fine with the two pages being sent to Draft, but all the redirects should be gone. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel a certain amount of sympathy for Locke Cole who's clearly been sent round the houses. There are people who care whether the closer is a sysop, but mainstream Wikipedia thought is not so blitheringly credentialist. For the most part we care whether the close was right, not who made it. I don't think it was massively wrong. The text is gone, as requested. Users who type these plausible search terms into the search bar will find something helpful. But. We haven't given this user FairProcess, and we should. And that AfD didn't really reach a consensus to draftify, did it? On balance: Relist.—S Marshall T/C 20:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @Dom Kaos, KAP03, Prahlad balaji, Lightburst, DGG, Mrschimpf, Feminist, Trillfendi, and Rsrikanth05: pinging participants in prior discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I said at the afd and continue to think that the available information is sufficient and sufficiently reliable for an article, but this is still a reasonable close, as is generally the case with a compromise close such as this. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear WP:BADNAC close as there were several valid outcomes. I agree we're not generally "blitherlingly credentialist" but given the process (the user may be more likely to accept a similar result if closed by an administrator, since I do generally agree with Hobit) this needs to be vacated and re-closed, probably after a relist to "get a more thorough consensus." SportingFlyer T·C 05:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I participated in the AfD. I do not know if the decision is a bad one, however since it is a controversial decision, and as such it probably should not have been closed by a non-administrator. Lightburst (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd like to take a neutral stance here. While I !voted for a delete for both articles, I see nothing wrong with a harmless bunch of redirects per WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You !voted Draftify... also, the redirects are effectively neologisms. Those terms don't exist in sources except for rumors/guesses, and that makes them a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, a policy, not an essay... —Locke Cole • t • c 13:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a very thin line between Draftify and Delete. The general understanding is that the subject doesn't warrant an article, yet. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I just got an ad from Apple for this. Coming out in 7 days. I think we can safely expect we'll have an article within a week or so. Hobit (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I !voted in the AfD and chose delete. However this close is also proper and in keeping with WP:ATD. Lightburst (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hammond (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD was three to one vote in favour of Keep, and it was closed as a Delete. It seems that the closing administrator has substituted his/her own opinion in place of the consensus. I think a relist would be prudent ~~ Dflaw4 (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd technically endorse since nobody seems to have found any WP:GNG sources, the best keep !vote is actually a good argument for deletion (no WP:GNG sources and negates one of the !keep votes), and there's not really mention of any place where WP:GNG sources could be found, so not sure a relist would have been all that helpful. That being said, would have preferred a discussion with closing admin to see if they would have relisted before coming here, though. Correct result, odd procedure. SportingFlyer T·C 08:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as there was no consensus to delete. The only delete !vote was made before editors started improving the article and all subsequent !votes were to keep. The closer seemed to have made their own assessment. That's a supervote which was based on GNG which is a guideline not a policy and so admits of exceptions. Our actual policies and processes such as WP:ATD and WP:DGFA were not followed. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - SWP13 apparently added references. Dflaw4 said that they're "not sure that those references help meet WP:GNG", no-one else commented on the references. Considering SWP13 supposedly believes these sources satisfied GNG and that only one editor said they're "not sure" they do, there is no consensus that the sourcing does not meet GNG, nor clear consensus that it does. Further discussion was warranted, not a closure as delete. --MrClog (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. The keep arguments are weak, but so is the only delete !vote; that doesn't add up to a consensus to delete. It should have been relisted. – Joe (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Further discussion was warranted and justifiable. That said, the keep arguments are weak. --Enos733 (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• relist I understand the close, but in the case where numeric good-faith consensus seems to be going against the guidelines, a relist is generally the best option on the table. At the moment I don't think consensus can be said to exist for deletion. Hobit (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - No Consensus would have been a reasonable close, but since the article is being improved and other editors are saying to relist, Overturn and Relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse or optionally relist. I can't really blame the closing admin here, one of the keep !voters basically admits that the subject doesn't meet the GNG, another notes that references have been added without mentioning the quality and the third one just refers to the others. The sourcing is very poor, almost all the sources cited are IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes or similar sites which either namecheck him as being in the cast of some film or repeat a biography the subject probably wrote. The only exception is [28], which is a blog which we shouldn't be using as a source for personal information in a BLP anyway. I've no objection to relisting but if it has to be closed in that state I think Delete is the best closure. Hut 8.5 21:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Request temporary undeletion. I want to see the references added by User:SWP13. I'm guessing that either they were improperly ignored, or they were so poor as to not be worth commenting on. Like the one offered in the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the cached version, only the first three sources are about the subject, the next eleven are about the films and verify that Hammond was in it. The first three sources have zero secondary source content, and so fail the GNG without considering whether they are reliable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: I've done a temporary undeletion. Hut 8.5 16:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, relist. During the AfD, SWP13 (talk · contribs) added fifteen sources to the article, which previously had none except for the IMDb external link. The first three could be argued to support notability (although I argue they do not). The addition of these sources demands a comment in the AfD, they were not obviously gratuitous reference bombing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In response to the above "Endorse" arguments, I would emphasise that the issue at hand, as I understand it, is whether the votes in the AfD support a "delete" consensus—not whether the sources found thus far meet WP:GNG. This is why I applied for the review—because I do not believe that the "delete" close logically follows from the votes and discussion in the AfD. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dflaw4: to clarify, what's being discussed here is whether the AfD closer read the consensus correctly—whatever the decision was—not whether the participants in the discussion came to the correct conclusion. ——SN54129 10:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, exactly, that's how I understand it, ——. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure if you meant my endorse specifically, but to clarify I'm commenting on the closer's rationale for closing as they mention WP:GNG, not whether the sources meet WP:GNG. (I haven't looked at the sources.) SportingFlyer T·C 04:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We usually see things these days a little broader than that. If the result is grossly wrong, the procedure did not work properly

• Overturn and relist this was not in keeping with our WP:CONSENSUS policy. Lightburst (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist because there were only four comments on the deletion page, and there was no clear consensus. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn there was no consensus to delete. WP:NOTABILITY clearly states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". It has to meet one not both otherwise the subject-specific guidelines would not exist. WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." If consensus was that his roles were significant, as the three KEEP votes suggest, then it should've been closed as KEEP. Two of the three films he was in mentioned in the lead have him listed as a main character, that a significant role in those films deemed notable enough by Wikipedia standards to have an article. The closing statement by Bibliomaniac15 "it has come into question whether there are sources beyond a simple listing of roles that would allow this to pass WP:GNG." is not a valid reason to delete the article since it does not have to pass the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 06:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn Gibbes (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD was just relisted yesterday, with a two-to-two vote thus far, and has been suddenly closed as a Delete with no explanation. ~~ Dflaw4 (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You probably should have asked the closing administrator for an explanation before taking it here. I know it's technically optional, but this is a classic AfD where that could have been helpful. SportingFlyer T·C 08:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, SportingFlyer, I didn't realise you could ask a closing administrator to take back his/her "close". I'm relatively new to this process. I will keep that in mind for the future. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Relisting was sensible as opinions were evenly divided and some digging for more sources was being done. The peremptory deletion was not explained and so seems out of process. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. There was no consensus when the discussion was relisted and obviously none emerged afterwards, because there were no additional comments. This is indeed a strange close. At the very least, coming down on one side when the !votes are evenly split needs some explanation. @Bibliomaniac15: Could you please explain your reasoning? – Joe (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• O+r I note Bibliomaniac15 has just returned from a hiatus a few years' long. Notwithstanding our perennial backlogs, contentious AfD closes are a good way of annoying a lot of people all at once (the Josh Hammond DRV^^^ is theirs too), perhaps just slow down a tad with the closes. ——SN54129 18:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I made a mistake in closing this one without checking the date of the relist; it was still listed in the old AFD section as I was going through it. bibliomaniac15 19:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • yep, that happens, especially if you're rusty I suspect. Welcome back! speedy relist or backing out of the close is my !vote here given the above. Hobit (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olan_Montgomery (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A number of wholesale deletions were made to my recently deceased brother's wiki. Diannaa, one of your admins, did this removal without notice or consultation. That removed content was made inaccessible to me on claim of copyright infringement. This is false. All she had to do was check with me and I would have been able to explain to her the situation. Frankly no one should really remove content, unless it is inflammatory or obscene, without first checking with the author of that content regardless of your rules. Her actions were highly insensitive to a grieving family. At the very least she could have given me the common decency of a notice to make any changes myself. I want the original content restored or returned to me by email as it contains valuable information for our family. If the page cannot be restored to allow me to edit it per instruction then I wish to rescind all permissions of your platform to publish the photo's I posted to wiki commons for his site and ask that they be removed from the wiki platform. I look forward to your quick response Gumaraid (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Gumaraid[reply]

Sorry about your loss. The content I removed was copied from http://www.olanphotography.com/PHOTO/BIO.html and https://www.dealfuneraldirectors.com/obituary/Timothy-Montgomery. Adding prose that's already been published elsewhere online is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy, so we can't keep it. Sorry too about the images you uploaded: it's not possible for you to rescind their release under license. It's a permanent and irrevocable release. — Diannaa (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems that Commons policy is to give uploaders one day to take a mulligan. Photos have been deleted by request. I've reached out to Gumaraid offering to help him to restore content in a manner which resolves the copyvio issues. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This should probably be closed as some sort of Procedural Close. This does not appear to be an appeal of the deletion of a page but a request to review the editing of a page. The statement that "no one should really remove content ... without first checking with the author of that content..." is a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Sympathies to the family, but ... the family seems to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There are revisions that were deleted as copyvios, so DRV is the right forum, but the deletions were appropriate for the reasons explained by Diannaa above. Sandstein 15:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the OP hasn't given any reason to think these deletions were improper. You don't own your contributions here, they can be edited and removed by anyone, particularly if they breach Wikipedia's policies. Hut 8.5 15:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse on copyvio grounds - the deletion was proper, and I don't see anything that can be appealed really. Support a procedural close. SportingFlyer T·C 17:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I object. Please explain with source why this paragraph that I wrote is a copyright infringement? "I hazard that I cannot know what lies after as I have not yet seen for myself. I can only take on faith that there is a place, a home, in that undiscovered country, for weary travelers who journey there never to return. Until then I remember. Especially in the spring as Orion sinks in the western sky, the bees break from their winter slumber and the daffodils bloom. There is Olan. Second star on the right and straight on till morning." And if this is a copyright issue, certainly it could be footnoted rather than deleted outright" I feel you have unfairly destroyed my work to protect one of your own. I have no more desire to post to wiki or edit the abbreviated story with which an administrator has overwritten my work. The heavy handedness of this discourse needs to be addressed. Is there a means to raise a complaint with the gods of Wiki against an administrator? Or are each of you gods unto yourselves free to do with individual contributors as you will? Who is the gatekeeper's gatekeeper? Gumaraid (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Gumaraid[reply]

• @Gumaraid: Wikipedia's copyright rules can seem complex, but we take copyright very seriously here, probably more seriously than anything else that comes up regularly. What Diannaa posted above is correct - we cannot use prose that has been previously published elsewhere - and Diannaa is very highly regarded here for their copyright expertise. I get why it may feel like it, but I also hope you understand none of this is personal. I would recommend working with Carrite to improve the article in an acceptable way. SportingFlyer T·C 19:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @SportingFlyer:I apologize if my continuing to pursue this matter is bothersome. I take copyright law very seriously as well and certainly you can understand how this has been made personal to me. I am past the anger of seeing a week's worth of work wiped out and replaced with a generalized description of my brother's life. However, as a point of order, that prose you cite as copyrighted was developed by me and would not be published anywhere else but on my brother's wiki page where I originally posted it. It is my compilation wrought by my own thoughts using well known public domain ideas for inspiration. As experts in copyright law I am certain you are aware that ideas are not protected by copyright. The prose that I posted above is my work written by my hand from ideas that originate from Shakespeare's Hamlet and J. M. Barrie's work Peter and Wendy. Nevertheless if you claim copyright law applies to a 400 year old work by a famous English bard or the adaptation of a four word quote "Straight on till morning." from Barrie's 1911 novel, then a citation seems to be all that would be required rather than the wholesale deletion of the prose I placed in his page. This is just an example of what was lost. The majority of the information was references to famous celebrities, photographers and agencies with whom he worked and films and series in which he acted. This was termed "Name Dropping" as a reason for the wholesale edits of my work. Now to be fair, I do not claim that everything was not copyrighted. some language I lifted and reworked from my own brother's bio on his photography website olanphotography.com, Which incidentally has no copyright statement or mark. Some of the language on his photography website is from his original wiki page, so origin may be debated. Now to the prose that I posted on his wiki I have yet to be provided a reference to where this is published. Unless you can provide such, then the claim that it is copyrighted cannot be correct. If you can provide such a reference I will be more than happy to apologize and go my way. Needless to say this whole experience has soured me to this platform is an understatement. Please understand that I am not seeking to repost my prose into my brother's wiki page. I am past that. Now it is about getting back what was taken from me, if that is even possible. I understand the concerns of copyright infringement and that is not the issue here. Really all I want is the material that was deleted. not all of it can be considered a copyright infringement of my recently passed brother's own website. If you review the actual content it will be quite apparent. The summarily removed content is the culmination of six days of collection and rework to capture my brother’s legacy in wiki for posterity. The story now lacks the depth that I was working to convey in the words I posted.I humbly request that the material that represented my brother’s story that I last updated at 21:46, 9 April 2020‎ be returned to me if it is retreivable. The information collected and captured in that content contains names, information and links to people and stories that are precious to our family. If you could be so gracious as to collect and return the raw content to me I would be grateful. Gumaraid (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Gumaraid[reply]

• @Gumaraid: Not bothersome at all - just trying to help you understand the motivation on the other end here given your very personal situation. I haven't seen the revisions you've posted, but we also have a rule WP:NOTMEMORIAL which may have applied to what you've posted as well, as we strive to make sure the tone of the encyclopaedia is encyclopaedic. Please work with Newyorkbrad to get a copy of your revisions. I'm sorry this experience has been difficult for you. (Given there's an acceptable remedy here and this isn't technically about the deletion of a page, I think any admin would be welcome to speedy close this.) SportingFlyer T·C 21:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gumeraid: I will e-mail you the material. Please let me know (by e-mail or on my talkpage) which specific revision(s) you need. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that within the context of our bureaucratic procedures, DRV is not the right forum for this issue. That being said, I am completely unimpressed by the way this situation was handled, and I want it on record that if I had seen the block of Gumeraid while it was in effect, I would have immediately reversed it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Now to the prose that I posted on his wiki I have yet to be provided a reference to where this is published. Unless you can provide such, then the claim that it is copyrighted cannot be correct. If you can provide such a reference I will be more than happy to apologize and go my way.
  • That was actually provided by Diannaa in their original response to this thread:
• The content I removed was copied from http://www.olanphotography.com/PHOTO/BIO.html and https://www.dealfuneraldirectors.com/obituary/Timothy-Montgomery. Adding prose that's already been published elsewhere online is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy, so we can't keep it.
  • Publishing at those sites counts as copyright, and is incompatible with Wikipedia's own Creative Commons system (CC-BY-SA).
  • Further, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and as such we would not include that text in the article.
  • Publishing your own creative work to a blog or other site might be the best result. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is just not suited for this purpose. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I believe User:Gumeraid now understands the situation and is arranging for the material to be published elsewhere. To facilitate this, I have e-mailed him the deleted revision as he requested. I believe that further piling-on is not necessary and that an uninvolved administrator can close this now. I remain sad about the rules-focused bureaucracy, culminating in a block, that Wikipedia displayed to a person in mourning soon after the loss of his brother. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel Music Association (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion discussion began on April 1 but the main WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music, was never notified, nor was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music or Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. In 10 minutes of research I found over 28,500 articles on Newspapers.com from 1969 to 2020, coverage in Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, Billboard magazine, Close Harmony: A History of Southern Gospel, 6,110 hits in Google News and 472 in Google Scholar. All this took was 10 minutes. Even a modicum of research would have allowed the page to be improved with any of literally tens of thousands of reliable sources, but because the relevant editors were never notified the listing was barely discussed and closed as delete with little input. Toa Nidhiki05 13:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but allow new version. The AfD could not have been closed any other way, so that's an obvious endorse. But, the reason given in the AfD for deletion was lack of WP:RS, which the OP believes they can fix. So, restore this to draft or userspace and give the OP the opportunity to work on it. No promises that it'll be accepted back into mainspace, but no reason to deny the OP the chance to improve it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but allow new version as per RoySmith. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and agree that a new version is allowed as per RoySmith's suggestion - perhaps start in Drafts first and make sure there are references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Ping me if any help needed on references. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This seems fair to me. I think I can develop something serviceable fairly quickly. Toa Nidhiki05 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Think we can probably close this as well - a new version is obvious given the couple sources presented and this solution has been accepted by the nominator. Do recommend starting with a draft though and moving it when it's ready - if you choose AfC feel free to ping me (as a warning, not really on here much anymore) and I'll review and accept if it passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I will add these sources as well: The Sound of Light: A History of Gospel and Christian Music, pages 282, 377, 279-380, and "Gospel Music Association" (paywalled, but substantive coverage in an academic publication). I actually was starting a deletion review but then saw this entry. I wasn't sure if this was the right avenue or not to pursue in recreating the article. I figured undoing the deletion would involve less work than rebuilding the article from scratch. I do think the delete was premature since three substantive sources were easily found through a Google Books search.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• AfD is so poorly-attended nowadays that its decisions are getting a bit random. I see a bunch of delete !votes from people who don't understand why they need to google things, and they won the day. I know that's an outlier but it never used to happen and the fact that it's started to, is not a good thing for our encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 17:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you can say the people who voted deleted don't understand the need to Google things when literally everyone who voted that way said they did a search. I did a more then adequate search myself, including in the newspaper sources cited above. Nothing in-depth on the company came up though. Everything was about the GMA Awards and only mentioned the company in passing. In Google, Newspapers.com, or anywhere else. If you or anyone else are able to find sources that meet WP:NCORP's notability standards more power to you. I doubt it though. Even the last two sources given above are trivial IMO. I'm perfectly fine with the article being recreated though. As long as it's vetted for notability first by someone who knows what they are doing. Also, as far as I know, alerting Wikiprojects about an AfD is a courtesy not an obligation. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please explain to me how an encyclopedia entry and an article in an academic journal that are each explicitly devoted to the subject, and discussion of the history of the organization that takes up multiple pages in a non-self-published book are "trivial" coverage? I get that there is a deletionist/inclusionist divide between some editors, but how does this coverage not satisfy basic notability guidelines?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I don't feel the need to since your discounting the delete votes as just being "deletionist." It's not a good faith way to approach it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about deletionism was meant in regards to what you said above, not the AfD discussion. I understand that some editors want to be more selective, but how is this coverage not notable?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never have !voted delete for that title. Even if I'd somehow been unable to locate sources, I'd have considered that it's a plausible search term. I would have been looking for a suitable merge or redirect target, or possibly a disambiguation page. I can certainly envisage someone typing "Gospel Music Association" into Wikipedia's search bar.—S Marshall T/C 00:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed the same trend. We have too many editors who turn up at AfDs and just give a knee-jerk personal opinion rather than look for evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've already restored the article independently; I didn't know this discussion was happening. The AfD was shockingly poorly conducted - I didn't even have to go to the library (not like I can, right now) to find three encyclopedias with articles on this organization, one of which was already in the article at the time it was deleted. I recommend that the nominator and other "delete" !voters in that discussion review their WP:BEFORE skills. Chubbles (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My search was so painfully clear that there were sources I didn't feel that I needed to supply any of them. Agree that BEFORE did not appear to be done and the other commentors did not bother to search for anything. I should have, in hindsight, notified the relevant projects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suggest the article be deleted again or moved to the userspace of the person who restored it. So it can go through the proper process to be restored, in a way that respects the endorse votes above, that said it shouldn't be restored without being improved and vetted first. The restored article still contains the dead links and trivial coverage that led to it being deleted. I see zero point in any of this if someone can just unilaterally, at their will, restore an article without improving it and while ignoring everyone else's opinions. Especially since all the comments in favor of restoring the article have just been attacks on the people who voted delete. Instead of constructive, good faith efforts to resolve the issue through providing the notable sourcing they claim exist. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, the sources have been provided, and the article has been improved with them. At this point it's starting to look like you have a personal vendetta here. I can understand wanting to go through correct procedure and have the article vetted, but that's different than making false claims about the article not being improved with better sourcing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article wasn't salted, so re-creating the article with better sources wasn't against policy. If you have the sources, you can re-create a previously deleted article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to know how me saying that the process and everyone's opinions should be respected is having a personal vendetta. On the "improved sourcing" I would go into why it doesn't actually improve anything, but there's zero point. Since you clearly don't care. Why are you so against it being moved to the person's userspace before being restored like people want? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't against it going to userspace first. But when you misrepresent and insinuate that the article hadn't been changed at all from what it was prior to deletion, it comes across as a personal prejudice against that article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re "salting", normally I'd agree with you, but I feel like it's different here because there was already an un-deletion request in the process. Where people said they wanted the article to be drafted and reviewed before being restored. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the editor in question said that they re-created the article without knowing that there was a deletion review in process. Why move to draft and then back again? If it was someone trying to game the system, sure, that's understandable, but in this case it was a genuine bold edit.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Muboshgu's AfD nomination, the article was recreated through a separate un-deletion and userfication request to which Sandstein did not object. So yes, wasn't an attempt to side-step a review process.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was intentional attempt to bypass the process. Nor do I care if it was or not. My personal preference is that it be drafted for the reasons I stated. You don't agree and think I'm just motivated by a vendetta. Which is fine. We can both have our opinions. I don't really care.--Adamant1 (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've accused an editor of re-creating the article without requesting a review, which was untrue, and you've argued that the article wasn't changed, when it was. Whether or not you actually have a vendetta or not, I can't know, but surely you can see why it would appear that way?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is, if all that comes out of this is that the article is way improved, then that's a win in my book. 100% I did what I thought was an adiquate before at the time. Its not on me if people were able to find sources I wasn't and decide make accusations or throw tantrums becuase of it. The AfD didnt lead to crap except the article being better. I'm perfectly happy with that. The other stuff is pathetic, but that's life. I'm not resposible for you or anyone elses paranoia complexes or bad attitudes (You've been way more reasonable then some others. Which I appreciate). Nor do I need to justify or explain my behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally didn't have an issue with it getting deleted - I think it was premature and that WP:BEFORE wasn't adequately applied, but it's easy to appeal a deletion and rescue the article. I appreciate that the discussion has happened, because it's improved the article. What Walter's and my concern was is that had WikiProject Christian music been notified, the article could have been rescued without so much process. I can't say for sure that I would've seen the talk page discussion, but it's likely that I would've.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (number two) I should make clear that I don't have a problem with the conduct of the closing admin, but rather with the conduct of the AfD as it was carried out during the discussion period. Now that the article has, independently of this discussion, been restored (by me) and nominated for deletion again, perhaps it is time to close this discussion as moot, since a new venue is open for disposition of the article, and I don't think anyone is arguing that the closing admin's actions were untoward. Chubbles (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion should be closed as moot because the article has been recreated and is being discussed at AfD, where it is heading for a correct, evidence-based, result rather than the bizarre result of the first discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's certainly a pity that some editors are using that AfD as an alternative deletion review. The orderly way to do this is to have one discussion at a time.—S Marshall T/C 09:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Would the better streamlining action be to speedy close the AfD and move the conversation here? Chubbles (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the article is getting kept and this discussion is now moot anyway. Close both?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say we decided it was OK to re-create articles in the mainspace while they're still at deletion review. And then let's say it was OK to start a fresh AfD while the deletion review is still happening; and then we did decide to allow the AfD to overrule the DRV. What would be the consequences of those decisions? Wouldn't we be putting a back door into every AfD and every DRV?—S Marshall T/C 16:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay to re-create articles in mainspace when you fix the problems that got them deleted - e.g., by adding sources demonstrating notability. I hasten to note (again) that I did not intend to subvert the DRV process by re-creating, because I didn't know it was happening. I was not notified at REFUND by the refunder or the deleting admin that the DRV was happening when I asked for the article to be draftified, even though it was already underway; again, I don't think that's a mark against anyone at REFUND. We can of course let both conversations run their course, but even before the 2nd AfD, the sentiment here seemed to be favoring endorsing the close and allowing re-creation - and a re-created article may be re-AfD'ed, even if we typically ask users to spread these things out. I guess I'm not super worried about setting some sort of unsavory precedent here, even if the process has been rather deliriously accelerated. I'm much more worried about the shoddiness of the AfD legwork that got us here in the first place. Chubbles (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Chubbles posted at REFUND before the DRV was opened, and no one subsequently notified them of the DRV, so certainly no fault there. There's no prohibition on userfying an article while a DRV is pending so neither the userfying admin nor the deleting admin, who approved userfication, should be faulted. Chubbles certainly can't be faulted for doing good work in improving the sourcing on the article to the point that notability is now unchallenged. The real fault lies with the nominator and the delete !voters, who simply ignore basic elements of notability policy and have misplaced Trumpian levels of confidence in their remarkably rudimentary searching skills. I've recently encountered several literature-related AFDs where the nominator failed to find reviews in the New York Times, to say nothing of discussions where the noms and delete !voters professed to be unable to find critical commentary on the works of George Orwell or John Updike, and on a major Martin Scorsese film; further back, Randle McMurphy was actually deleted, and Nurse Ratched headed that way, on the claim that there was no significant critical commentary on the novel, movie, or play they appear in. AFD is becoming a cesspool where feral editors tee off on subjects they believe shouldn't be notable, policy and the purpose of an encyclopedia be damned, and it's going to keep getting worse until Wikipedia is embarrassed as it was in the Amanda Filipacchi fiasco. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn It is now clear that this was a bad call and so we should recognise this fact. Kudos to Walter Görlitz for getting it right. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The original decision was an accurate reflection of the consensus on the AfD, but the consensus was a shoddy one that didn't due proper diligence to the sources. To be fair, the article was in a more sorry state than now. Since the article was re-created, no action is required. The 2nd AfD will almost certainly be "keep."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

An emotive WP:SUPERVOTE that failed to provide policy based reason for the deletion. The closing admin added his personal view and unfounded allegation that there is "increasing state-sanctioned Islamophobia and persecution of Muslims in India", but that is too far from meeting any deletion criteria. The subject has received worldwide coverage,[29][30][31] To say that we should limit the amount of article creation only because the subject in question is "highly volatile and rife with misinformation and tensions in the real world and on Wikipedia", also makes no sense and cannot be justified by a policy. Tessaracter (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The nominator clarified that the AfD nomination was incorrect in the light of how much the whole thing blew up. It is safe to say that it was a premature nomination that was withdrawn. Those closing admin's comments make it seem very odd, with a strong amount of political correctness rather than policy. As User:Tessaracter pointed out, it received worldwide coverage and the entire decision seems to be based on an unfound basis. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum Wanted to mention this. In view of the opening statements given, on "tensions" between Hindus and Muslims, Wikipedia is Righting great wrongs.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Please make this reviewable by non-administrators, since there are accusations in the wind of a SuperVote close in this instance. I have no opinion of either the article or this allegation myself, not having been able to see the article. Carrite (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

tempundeleted -- RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Reading through WP:SUPERVOTE, I don't see which type of supervote applies here. The difficulty with a discussion as messy as this one is that I think a neutral closer could have closed this as either delete, no consensus, or keep, and I don't think there's anything wrong with the policy basis for deletion, which agrees with the POVFORK delete !votes, and does not preclude this from being covered elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer T·C 17:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A close is where the closer evaluates what the community has decided. A supervote is where the closer decides they know better than the community.—S Marshall T/C 18:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I know what a supervote is, and would prefer to use the actual WP:SUPERVOTE guideline when determining whether something was a supervote, but thank you. SportingFlyer T·C 19:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an essay though. We don't have a guideline. I mean, it's a fairly good essay, but it's not exactly the last word.—S Marshall T/C 00:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's true, but that essay is what we're specifically discussing with at this particular DRV. In my (firm) opinion, this isn't a situation where a closer has picked their preferred option in spite of the discussion - this is an experienced closer who made a difficult decision that's supported by the discussion (as are other decisions.) The two questions really are: was the close consistent with the discussion? And even if the close is consistent, was it a supervote? I'm convinced it was consistent, I think it's within policy even though Sandstein didn't specifically use WP:POVFORK in the closing statement, and I'm easily convinced it's not a supervote. SportingFlyer T·C 05:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If he had mentioned "WP:POVFORK" then we would be asking him how the article "forked" any other article and there would be no answer, because this 47k bytes article was completely independent of any other article. Tessaracter (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's clearly a fork of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India. Not sure what you're trying to prove here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Then you must show the WP:DIFFs indicating that the content was replicated from the main article. Tessaracter (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You are incorrectly assuming that in order to be a fork on Wikipedia, you must replicate content. What is important is the subject matter, specifically how the subject matter is presented. SportingFlyer T·C 20:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Refer to RfC and advertise at WP:CENT. I'm not comfortable !voting to overturn this because I think Sandstein might be right, but that closing statement arrogates an authority that the community has not delegated to any individual sysop. Plop the article in an unindexed space such as draft space while the community decides what to do. I'd specifically want a widely-advertised discussion to achieve a reliable consensus.—S Marshall T/C 18:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse As SportingFlyer says above, you could make a case for pretty much any close here. Since there is an element of POVFORK here, and the article is pretty poor and obviously partially written by those with a religious axe to grind, I have no problem with it being gone. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No consensus The article definately passes WP:GNG with both International coverage and National Coverage in every major newspaper, channel and website in WP:RS with clear Significant Coverage and particurly as it being reported when there is Nationalwide lockdown in India (though it took place fews days before the lockdown) and also in parts of the World due to coronavirus.This is current issue and is the coronavirus super-spreader in India with largest number of cronavirus cases in the country due to this event.Even in Pakistan this is a coronavirus super-spreader due to similar event there and also in Malaysia. .The only policy based question is will it be WP:LASTING and even at worst this should be kept as of now as per WP:RAPID (a discussion for delete or merge can take place later if someone thinks it it is not lasting and fails WP:LASTING).It has been closed delete for non notabilty related reasons as stated "In my view, arguments based on notability criteria should not be given decisive weight in the context of this kind of topic."Further it was closed after only 7 days it could have been extended ,Please note even the nominator of this article for deletion withdraw it on 5th April 2020 as it turned out to be much larger than earlier expected.From the 5th April to 10th April 12 votes were cast and out of which 9 were for Keep.But want to note that Sandstein is one of the best closers of deletion debates through ,I have not personally interacted with him do admire him for doing tough closes in Deletion debates and Tough blocks on the project including those considered Unblockables in enforcement and elsewhere which most admins would avoid.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No consensus keep as per Pharaoh of Wizards. The article definitely passes the GNG as it gained the coverage in both international and national media. The Tablighi Jamaat hotspot became worst hotspot [32], they misbehaved with medical staff [33], they threw bottles of urine at medical staff [34] and many more things. The event has WP:LASTING also plays part here as law enforcing authorities will take action against them after pandemic. -- Brihaspati (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment:- At the same time, there are a lot of tensions between Hindus and Muslims in India, and there is also increasing state-sanctioned Islamophobia and persecution of Muslims in India. This statement is purely PoV of the admin User:Sandstein which doesn't qualify for deleting the article. -- Brihaspati (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing my vote to keep after reading so many comments and rationale here. I am pretty sure that this passes WP:GNG and there is not iota of doubt in it. Admin did Supervote in this case.-- Brihaspati (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm with S Marshall here. This is best addressed at an RfC rather than another AfD. keep deleted for now, direct those that want it undeleted to create an RfC and be sure it gets listed at WP:CENT. To me this feels analogous to a BLP issue but for a larger group. I think we need to think about how to cover topics like this. Hobit (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This was a blatant supervote in which the closer made it clear that he was giving most weight to "my view". The close failed to consider sensible alternatives and, in choosing to delete, violated the emphatic guidance of WP:DGFA. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. I did vote keep in the AfD - when I first saw the AfD, I was non-committal because I wasn't sure that it was important enough to merit its own article, but when it blew up to something bigger, I thought it significant enough to keep. This also appears to be the view of the original nominator who withdrew the AfD, and also those who voted (nearly all who voted in the later period chose keep). I'm concerned that the closer chose to downplay the notability issue and focus on something else instead, which is about the volatility and tensions caused by the issue in India. This may be appropriate when discussing how to keep the content neutral, but I don't think it is appropriate for deciding whether to delete the article when it has already become a significant issue, and one that looks set to rumble on for some time. Otherwise, we could decide that all articles on controversial events that might inflame public opinion should be deleted however notable they may be. Hzh (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really think notability is the issue here, as whether the topic's relevant doesn't matter to the discussion here. The question really is whether the closer assessed the WP:POVFORK correctly (while I discuss a supervote above, that question relates directly to the POVFORK concern.) Logically, a topic should be deleted as a standalone article if it's notable but is a POVFORK of another article - in that case, the proper remedy is covering the subject neutrally in another article, which can be done in this instance. I also don't think that this would lead to a conclusion that we can always delete articles on controversial events. SportingFlyer T·C 07:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The closer did not mention POVFORK, and only two of the delete !vote mentioned POVFORK (the nominator withdrew the nomination, therefore obviously no longer believes it to be true). Unless the closer wishes to clarify, we cannot divine this is what the closer has in mind. I see no evidence that it is a POVFORK anyway. The weird thing is that the parent article 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India covers the subject so poorly you would suspect something is not right with it, for example, a Sikh man who infected 27 people gets almost as much mention in the India article as this event which resulted in over 1,440 infections (a third of all cases by 6 April), which suggests that the parent article is failing the WP:WEIGHT policy. The fact is that this event and its repercussions have continued to receive coverage in India and internationally, just a few of the many the last couple of days - [35][36][37][38], its significance should qualify it for a standalone article simply on notability ground alone. Hzh (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Sandstein did specifically mention "forks" in the close - it would be correct to say Sandstein didn't literally link to POVFORK, but the close itself was very clear on the POVFORK issue. I'm still convinced the remedy here is to improve the parent article. SportingFlyer T·C 21:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India article in fact suggests that the parent article itself is not able to keep it balanced by limiting the mention of the Tablighi Jamaat event to just one, it failed to even mention the communal tensions caused the event. This is frankly very odd, and raises question of whether it can maintain any semblance of balance. Hzh (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The rationale provided in the closing summary, that the article is a content fork, is the fifth reason listed in Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Reasons for deletion. The deletion discussion was subject to significant canvassing, including and there were two instances of canvassing in the discussion itself, both of which were performed by "Keep"/"Do Not Delete" !voters (Trojanishere and the initiator of this deletion review, Tessaracter). Both the deletion discussion and this current deletion review are also subject to off-wiki canvassing by fringe groups who are upset with the result of this noticeboard discussion on OpIndia and Swarajya. Considering the canvassing, it is within the closer's discretion to assign more weight to the "delete" arguments and close the discussion as "delete". — Newslinger talk 23:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims that I engaged in canvassing is absurd. I won't just recommend you to read what "canvassing" means and ask you to retract your absurd claim, but also tell you to read WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLE. We are not here to listen to your malafide justification for delete but the analysis of a WP:SUPERVOTE. The thread you are looking for is not that RSN discussion but this petty attempt to remove a sensible AfD nominator on ANI where many of the "delete" !votes of this AfD were singing in same choir to unreasonably sanction an editor. There too they were making same baseless claims of the subject being against the Islamic sect. Not to forget that !delete comments also included hours old registered account[39] and accounts registered only for throwing a "delete" here.[40] Should I recognize this sort of your failure to mention these details but eagerness to throw false accusations as some deliberate mistake or a significant demonstration of bad faith, or both? Article is not a "content fork" because it was completely independent of any other article on Wikipedia. You should learn to cite diffs for your wild claims. Tessaracter (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Special:Diff/948752338, Trojanishere attempted to canvass two editors to the deletion discussion. In Special:Diff/949648400, you canvassed four editors to a related discussion, which you were warned for at Special:Permalink/949684942 § Hi. Both instances of canvassing were performed through pings on the deletion discussion. I was not aware of the ANI discussion, but off-wiki canvassing does not suddenly become acceptable because people are upset over an ANI discussion instead of an RSN discussion. Canvassing (both off-wiki and on-wiki) distorts consensus-building, and it is in the closer's remit to weigh the affected arguments appropriately, which they have done. — Newslinger talk 02:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said at Special:Permalink/949684942 § Hi, special:diff/949648400 was not exactly canvassing. Tessaracter used neutral langauge at a related discussion. It is similar to a bot, or human posting a link to discussion/RfC at related venues including wikiproject talkpages. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Special:Diff/949648400 pinged a selection of users. If no users were pinged, or if all discussion participants were pinged, I would not have pointed out the comment. The off-wiki canvassing remains problematic. — Newslinger talk 02:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yupp, thats correct though. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In place of retracting your unfounded claim that I canvassed participants to the AfD, you are now throwing mud when nothing is going to stick. You are allowed to ping already involved editors wanting to move the page when page title is being discussed. Given the participation by !delete comments was heavily similar to that ANI discussion, it gets more clear that the !delete comments were suspicious and had history of falsely accusing things to be anti-Islamic. Conclusion is actually opposite to your belief. Tessaracter (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified my original wording in Special:Diff/950840957, but you were indeed canvassing. In Special:Diff/949648400, you pinged four editors, all of whom !voted "Keep". That is described as "Votestacking" in WP:CANVASS, and is considered "inappropriate". Your canvassing directed editors to another discussion. Trojanishere's edit (Special:Diff/948752338) attempted to direct others to the deletion discussion. Both incidents of canvassing took place on the deletion discussion, in addition to off-wiki canvassing. As for the rest of your comment, you have not provided any evidence that editors "had history of falsely accusing things to be anti-Islamic"; that is the kind of allegation the IFCN-rejected OpIndia (RSP entry) has been making in the last couple of months. — Newslinger talk 03:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn India is not alone who is investigating this issue. Given the fact we also have 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Pakistan, this subject has certainly received more coverage than what had been deemed during the opening of the AfD. Nominator had also withdrawn the AfD for a good reason. There is absolutely no element of WP:POVFORK here and the subject is absolutely notable and the article was well written. I participated in the AfD and saw that nearly all of the delete !votes were pushing their personal sentiments than providing any policy to justify their comment. Closing note appears to be irrelevant and has failed to doubt the notability of the subject or the structure of the article. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep as a no-brainer. I am appalled to see someone can actually provide weight to the arguments like "it's targeting Islam", "only biased kind of article creation", "article reeks of anti-Muslim sentiment" and other arguments perfectly laid out at WP:IDL. The evident move to ignore Keep arguments written by more than 10 experienced editors almost in a row, is completely beyond me. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 14:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I commented/voted in the AfD; so I am not going to request either an endorse, or overturn. As mentioned by other editors in the deletion discussion, this is still an ongoing event, with numbers/impact still rising. In my opinion, a "relist" would have been the best call. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As closer, I'm going to formally endorse my own closure here after reading the input above. There's no doubt that the topic meets GNG. But all forks of notable topics do that by definition, so if the deletion rationale is WP:POVFORK, then notability-based arguments are simply not very useful to make. The question is whether the POVFORK argument is compelling enough. In my view, the answer is yes: the number of arguments made on the basis of what appear to be ethno-religious bias in both the AfD and this DRV indicate that if kept, the article is likely to be very difficult to be kept neutral and consistent with the other articles treating the same topic. That this is a very virulent - pardon the pun - problem in the real world is indicated e.g. by this New York Times article of yesterday: "In India, Coronavirus Fans Religious Hatred". There is no doubt that the same tensions are infecting our articles, and to help prevent that, we need to control the spread of forks that are or can become POV forks. Sandstein 05:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]