THC Science

Administrator instructions

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

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

Purpose

Shortcut

WP:DRVPURPOSE

Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
(This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed); or
for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.

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

Shortcut

WP:DELREVD

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review


1.	Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:drv2 \|page= \|xfd_page= \|reason= }} ~~~~ Copy this template skeleton for files: {{subst:drv2 \|page= \|xfd_page= \|article= \|reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in `page` with the name of the page, `xfd_page` with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and `reason` with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, `article` is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 \|page=File:Foo.png \|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png \|article=Foo \|reason= }} ~~~~
3.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: `{{subst:DRVNote\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~`
4.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach `<noinclude>{{Delrev\|date=2022 April 1}}</noinclude>` to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
5.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2022 April 1}}</noinclude>` If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2022 April 1\|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>`

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted

*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~

*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~

*'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~

*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~

*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~

*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~

*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

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

Speedy closes

Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.

Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).

Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

Active discussions

1 April 2022

31 March 2022

Anchil Oral Arjunan

Closed on the basis of no sources. There are several reviews here, here, and here. DareshMohan (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted almost a year ago. You can recreate it if you are able to overcome the reason for deletion. If you need the old article content restored as a draft, we can arrange that here or at WP:REFUND. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Review of Draft Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bazaar Technologies

I would like to request a review for the deletion of this page that I created.

Author's Comments The company has received sustained news coverage since 2020 by both local and international new sources, these are not just passing mentions. What I did wrong was that I did not cite all of these publications in the article.

Bloomberg covered Bazaar technologies three times, here in Aug-2021 & here in Mar-22, both of these are about Bazaar Technologies. Third is a passing mention in Nov-21 here

TechCrunch covered here in Aug-20 and here in Mar-22, there are not passing mentions and not contributor pieces, these are written by staff members.

TechinAsia here in march-22, again not a contributor piece and not a passing mention

Times of India here again not a passing mention

Fintech Global here this also not a passing mention, described the finding round in detail

The truth international here this a Pakistan based Magazine, I have not cited them in the article.

Entrepreneur covered it here

The News Pakistan based print newspaper and website covered it here

Dawn Pakistan's English language news paper, TV channel and website covered it here & here

Gulf News borrowed it from Bloomberg here

Express Tribune covered it here

Harvard Business Review covered it here & here, this is faculty research

Neutral Point of View It was also indicated that writing was not neutral, I edited the article to make it more neutral.

Black hat SEO The nominator mentioned that this is a black hat SEO, I don't know what a black hat SEO is, the only link I mentioned in the article was to the official website

Discussion There were only three votes.

Nominator mentioned that it is a non notable SPAM, I have mentioned new references of significant and sustained coverage.

2nd comment only mentioned delete as per norm, by agreeing with the nominator

3rd comment Vote was for delete due to lack of multiple references, I have mentioned reference above, if the article is restored, I will cite then appropriately.

Notability Regarding notability, the start up space in Pakistan is not the same as in other parts of the world, Pakistani companies have just started taking this route of funding, most of the activity has only been in the last two years, so it is very notable inside Pakistan. $100 million funding in Pakistan is notable itself, apart from the fact that these are Pakistan's largest funding rounds.

Elmisnter! (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy endorse. Delete decision was unanimous except for the article creator. Deletion review is not a second bite at the cherry for people when AFD didn't go their way. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - A valid close and the correct close. The closer should consider strength of arguments, not length of arguments. Length of arguments is not persuasive here at DRV either. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

30 March 2022

List of songs about Montreal

inconsistency between deleting this specific article while keeping 36 others designed and powered exactly the same way :

Please delete them all or restore the article to Montreal. Urbanut (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Urbanut, welcome to deletion review. I've reformatted your nomination to make things clearer, hope that's OK. The fact that we have those other articles doesn't mean we have to keep this one. All it means is that we make decisions one at a time and we haven't got round to thinking about those ones yet. I'm afraid I think most of them will be deleted in due course. I hope that doesn't make you too unhappy.—S Marshall T/C 22:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse while the nom and one !voter mentioning WP:IINFO are incorrectly citing it (almost no list on Wikipedia is indiscriminate per its definition), I suspect that 90% of references to that policy are citing it incorrectly or inappropriately. If we overturned every AfD with that mistake, we'd be getting rid of a lot of them. Ditto with the nominator mistaking Montreal for a "province or territory" rather than a city. Fact is, no one supported keeping and the discussion cited specific defects in the sourcing for the list. Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this deletion and nominate some or all of the other articles mentioned for deletion too. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Millerovo air base attack

The result was summed up by an inexperienced editor based on Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. The main problem of the article is that there are no secondary sources that would describe the event. The fact that the Ukrainian army bombed the Russian air base has not been confirmed by either Russian or Ukrainian official sources. All information comes from a report by Russian propagandist Semyon Pegov, which was later reprinted by Ukrainian and other media. Please consider this case with an experienced administrator. Yakudza (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as the only possible reading of the consensus, and as proper NAC. Not one editor supported the nomination. Your argument isn't that the non-admin closer misread the situation, it's that everyone else who looked at the article and opined in the discussion is wrong as to the content of the article. I get that you feel strongly about this, but DRV is not for things where you couldn't convince a single editor at AfD to take your side. Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a truly horrible closing statement, though, isn't it? I mean, it's practically the platonic ideal of how not to write a close. I'm not surprised the nominator is unhappy about it.—S Marshall T/C 22:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, it's pretty in-your-face... but is it incorrect? Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't dispute the "keep" outcome, but a close should give closure. A good close is collegially-phrased and contains a summary of the arguments. I'd like it if we repaired that one.—S Marshall T/C 00:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry if I handled it badly, feel free to replace it/cross or add note "this is NOT how closing reason should look like for reasons XYZ" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy keep decision to normal keep. Speedy keep has a specific meaning. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

29 March 2022

Indian road articles

Below I have collapsed several quasi-identical review requests by Pselvaganapathy pertaining to speedily deleted articles about roads in India, so as to allow discussion of this group of requests as a whole. Sandstein 07:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Individual review requests

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Chennai City Roads Division (Highways)

This article contains list of roads under different categories of SH, MDR and ODR in a partiular Highways Division. Here it is Chennai City Roads Division (Highways). I have moved it from List of major district roads in Tamil Nadu to new page Chennai City Roads Division (Highways)). Try to understand and kindly restore this page. Pselvaganapathy (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Pselvaganapathy[reply]

Tiruvallur Division (Highways)

This article contains list of roads under different categories of SH, MDR and ODR in a Tiruvallur Highways Division. I have moved it from List of major district roads in Tamil Nadu to new page Tiruvallur Division (Highways)). Try to understand and kindly restore this page. Pselvaganapathy (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Pselvaganapathy[reply]

Chengalpattu Division (Highways)

This article contains list of roads under different categories of SH, MDR and ODR in Chengalpattu Division (Highways). Suppose if you want to list all countries in a continent in a wiki article, Will it be a fact which will be same in any website lisitng them or your own fictitious content ? Try to understand and kindly restore this page and also all division highways pages. Pselvaganapathy (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Pselvaganapathy[reply]

Vellore Division (Highways)

This article contains list of roads under different categories of SH, MDR and ODR in Vellore Division (Highways). Try to understand and kindly restore this page and also all division highways pages. Pselvaganapathy (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Pselvaganapathy[reply]

Vaniyambadi Division (Highways)

This article contains list of roads under different categories of SH, MDR and ODR in Vaniyambadi Division (Highways). Try to understand and kindly restore this page and also all division highways pages. Pselvaganapathy (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Pselvaganapathy[reply]

Thiruvannamalai Division (Highways)

This article contains list of roads under different categories of SH, MDR and ODR in Thiruvannamalai Division (Highways). Try to understand and kindly restore this page and also all division highways pages. Pselvaganapathy (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Pselvaganapathy[reply]

Cheyyar Division (Highways)

This article contains list of roads under different categories of SH, MDR and ODR in Cheyyar Division (Highways). Try to understand and kindly restore this page and also all division highways pages. Pselvaganapathy (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Pselvaganapathy[reply]

Villupuram Division (Highways)

This article contains list of roads under different categories of SH, MDR and ODR in Villupuram Division (Highways). Try to understand and kindly restore this page and also all division highways pages. Pselvaganapathy (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Pselvaganapathy[reply]

Kallakurichi Division (Highways)

This article contains list of roads under different categories of SH, MDR and ODR in Kallakurichi Division (Highways). Try to understand and kindly restore this page and also all division highways pages. Pselvaganapathy (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Pselvaganapathy[reply]

Cuddalore Division (Highways)

This article contains list of roads under different categories of SH, MDR and ODR in Cuddalore Division (Highways). Try to understand and kindly restore this page and also all division highways pages. Pselvaganapathy (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Pselvaganapathy[reply]

Ariyalur Division (Highways)

This article contains list of roads under different categories of SH, MDR and ODR in Ariyalur Division (Highways). Try to understand and kindly restore this page and also all division highways pages. Pselvaganapathy (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Pselvaganapathy[reply]

Perambalur Division (Highways)

This article contains list of roads under different categories of SH, MDR and ODR in Perambalur Division (Highways). Try to understand and kindly restore this page and also all division highways pages. Pselvaganapathy (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Pselvaganapathy[reply]

Trichy Division (Highways)

This article contains list of roads under different categories of SH, MDR and ODR in Trichy Division (Highways). Try to understand and kindly restore this page and also all division highways pages. Pselvaganapathy (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Pselvaganapathy[reply]

Pudukottai Division (Highways)

This article contains list of roads under different categories of SH, MDR and ODR in Pudukottai Division (Highways). Try to understand and kindly restore this page and also all division highways pages. Pselvaganapathy (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Pselvaganapathy[reply]

Thanjavur Division (Highways)

This article contains list of roads under different categories of SH, MDR and ODR in Thanjavur Division (Highways). Try to understand and kindly restore this page and also all division highways pages. Pselvaganapathy (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Pselvaganapathy[reply]

Discussion (Indian road articles)

Comment I deleted all these as G12 copyright violations of the relevant Indian Highways web pages. There is common ground that the text is taken from the source. However Pselvaganapathy contends that simple lists cannot be copyrighted, and he is therefore free to use the text. While I'd accept that some very simple lists can be exempt, I would content that the verbatim copying of detailed lists like these, without really changing a single text character, is eligible for G12. I suggested that it was brought to deletion review for a community decision Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's correct about simple lists in US copyright law, but then, Wikipedian decisions about copyright often surprise and confuse me. I note that the local government web page in question claims copyright but is willing to consider requests to reuse the material for educational non-profit purposes. It might be worth emailing them. What else did the deleted articles contain?—S Marshall T/C 08:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't copycat as it is in these. I have created a summary heading for SH, MDR and ODR with their total length. Also added list of SH and MDR which is not in the link mentioned. See thispage to know the difference it has. This page is now just a framework, which will be evolved into more better content as we will do so. Try to understand and respect others effort in bringing the data in compilation. See my previous efforts and contributions to wiki. I am the first to initiate an article for List of state highways in Tamil Nadu with username as Selvapsg prior to the information available in the Government website. Now it has been shaped to the current state. I am very well versed in writing articles on Highways related to Tamil Nadu. So kindly undelete these pages for further pursue. Pselvaganapathy (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Pselvaganapathy[reply]
I'll go with undelete, tag as possible copyvio and list at WP:CP on the footing of Pselvaganapathy's contention above that the Indian local government website is copying his work rather than the other way around.—S Marshall T/C 14:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore, per Diannaa below: no infringement exists.—S Marshall T/C 17:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this come under Sweat of the brow which under US law simple lists of facts can't be copyrighted, which would seem to be applicable here. As to if there is some encyclopaedic value for wikipedia in these is a different discussion. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure regarding the Name of the Road column (link pasted from above for clarity): are the entries always name (fact) or sometimes description (possibly copyrightable)? I don't see any other copyrightable content, per WP:Copyright in lists (essay), which also mentions "sweat of the brow". Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transparency: I've dropped a message on Diannaa's talk page asking for her thoughts on this. She's a previously uninvolved sysop who's very active in copyright-related matters.—S Marshall T/C 10:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some spot checks, I googled some of the names listed in the articles, and these appear to be the actual names of the roads, not descriptive prose. And they are listed numerically by their State Highway number. So there's no creative element in these charts and therefore nothing copyrightable in my opinion. — Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect these lists may be copyrighted depending on the criteria used to include entries in the list. Chennai district, for example, has a population of 7 million, but Chennai City Roads Division (Highways) only had 46 entries. There must be more roads than that in Chennai district, so what distinguishes those 46? If it's roads which have a certain official designation then that would be OK, but if it's the roads which somebody thought were the most significant/important/noteworthy then that judgement could be copyrighted. Some of the sections in the list were obviously listing roads by official designation, but "Other District Roads" doesn't sound like one. Hut 8.5 15:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chennai City Roads Division (Highways) handles only SH (State Highways), MDR and ODR roads. It will not account for the corporation roads in city limits. You should not get confused between Highways Roads and City Roads. Here it is the division within highways to handle the roads meant for them and lisiting them will not have any copyright issue Pselvaganapathy (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Pselvaganapathy[reply]

55701 Ukalegon (closed)

55701 Ukalegon – Deleted article history restored as a contested WP:PROD. Sandstein 15:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Page was prodded last year and I somehow missed it. Please restore the content, but leave the redirect in place while I figure out what to do next. Please put the talk page back as well. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 15:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spot News 18

I would like to request to restore this page. The page was in deletion for discussion process but the process hasn't been followed. The article deleted within 4 - 5 after relisting. The article has notability and they are active. So I again request to restore this article. --43.231.213.160 (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that discussion was irretrievably sock-tainted. I suggest that we start a fresh AfD and semi-protect it.—S Marshall T/C 15:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to restarting this and getting some fresh eyes on a new AFD. I don't know what 43.231.213.160 means by "the process hasn't been followed". At the point that I closed this AFD, I didn't think a second relisting would have helped come to a clearer consensus. Unfortunately, the nominator, along with most of the voters, were all socks so a new nominator would be called for, perhaps by the closer of this discussion. Of course, maybe the other editors participating in this deletion review would consider this closure acceptable and not want to overturn it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. It is not improper to close a relished AFD as soon as there is consensus; no requirement exists that a full 7-day listing be observed. Having given the correct weighting to sock !votes, the closer was within her rights to close as delete. Stifle-alt, an alternate account of Stifle (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have got some new strong references about this topic, so I would request you to allow me to write a draft on this topic.

Here are the References:

1

2

3 43.231.213.160 (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

28 March 2022

BJ Dichter

First I should declare I wrote the article and I also note this was a difficult decision and I acknowledge the good faith decision by the closing admin and the careful explanation provided when I asked about it.

However, I request a review primarily because I think there was no consensus and I therefore disagree with the conclusion that consensus was reached for any outcome. Secondary to that, I think it is unfair that someone voted twice differently (maybe not in opposite directions, but giving the impression there was more delete votes than there was) ; I think there was some "I do not like" in one delete argument and while I see that those arguing for delete were slightly higher in number, I think there was a very compelling explanation of why BLP1E does not apply that nobody arguing to delete addressed that = I am saying the "keep" crowd presented a more policy-driven argument, even if they were in slight minority.

If the philosophy on Wikipedia is "When in doubt, don't delete", was there really no doubt here?

So primary request: it be considered "no consensus" and secondary point that some delete votes should have been disregarded or discounted. CT55555 (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

overturn to no consensus There were two basic arguments for deletion and/or redirection: GNG and BLP1E.
- Claims that BLP1E doesn't apply are reasonable. In particular, evidence was given that he had significant (if local) coverage before the event. And it's reasonable to claim that someone who is a "regular pundit on Fox News", has run for political office, and is chair of a controversial group that's in the news isn't "low profile".
- Claims that the GNG is met are reasonable. With sources like: [1] (local but purely on him), [2] which has 8 short paragraphs on him at the national level, and brief mentions in international news [3], [4], claims that the GNG is met can't be ignored.

Basically the keep arguments did a solid job of rebutting the the delete and redirect ones. Given the numbers (which were nearly equal) and strength or arguments, it feels like the only way it could be closed is NC. Hobit (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would have closed as delete but I don't think we're going to end up there; endorse closure as redirect. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC Per Hobit's analysis, which he beat me to. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I concur with Hobit's analysis, but, in my opinion, it does not require an Overturn. There are reasons to keep, and reasons to delete. We at DRV are not closing the AFD, but reviewing whether the closer made a reasonable judgment call. The closer concluded that the Delete and Redirect arguments were stronger, and had slightly more !votes. So the close should be left standing, as a judgment call by the closer, and closers should exercise judgment;. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first time here, so forgive me if I got this wrong: I assume we all agree we're not reassessing the AfD, we're assessing if it was correct to say there was consensus. The closer didn't say the delete and redirect arguments were stronger, they said there was "consensus" and that is where I think an error was made. The normal English meaning of consensus is general agreement, which is the opposite of what happened in the AfD, the contributors to the discussion really made opposite arguments, and did not convince each other or agree. CT55555 (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

27 March 2022

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-03-27/From the team

A WP:SNOW close after 50 minutes and only 7 !votes is simply a partisan attempt to impose the closer's views. It is sn outrageous abuse of WP:SNOW. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and endorse snow close a deletion review after less than 50 minutes and an admin approval is an outrageous use of WP:POINT. ~~Overturn and delete~~ neutral as the original article has been replaced with a completely irrelevant article meant to satisfy a single user’s partisan bludgeoning. This review is now moot. Dronebogus (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally favor a protest delete because it would a) deny recognition and b) get rid of the bowdlerized article, but that is obviously WP:POINT so I’m not doing it. Dronebogus (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, it's clear which direction the wind was blowing, based on the AfD and the ANI thread. No harm in trying to reduce drama. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an "outrageous use", and to express it as a "partisan attempt to impose [my] views" is pretty absurd given that all 7 !votes were opposition from editors that I would class as quite experienced, and whilst it doesn't change much, it wasn't just me who'd make this decision as evidenced by GN's affirmation. Yes, it was a bold move, and this thread will probably demonstrate to how bold it really was or wasn't.
Full disclosure: I was not involved prior to closing the discussion, and had been working on meta:Teyora's recent changes feed, which is how I discovered this discussion. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 23:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yay I’m experienced! Dronebogus (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was closed too quickly. Quick closes like that are rarely useful in reducing drama--people will just complain (as you (BHG) have). But also, it's a clear keep. The entire request misunderstands NPOV. Each person, and indeed each group of people, is allowed to express their own opinions on Wikipedia outside of article space. We do it all the time. So I've no problem with the process being overturned, but yes, it's a clear and obvious keep IMO. A longer listing isn't going to change that. The only reason to overturn it is to show that the process is in fact fair. But on the very specifics: I don't see how anyone with facts-in-hand could claim the Russians are in the right here. It feels a bit like someone saying "racism is bad". We don't tend to say that in Wiki-voice, but per WP:NAZI we do run things that way. Hobit (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the MfD wasn’t to process but I think WP:IAR applies in this case. Dronebogus (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:NOTBUR Dronebogus (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not as cool as a Wikilink, but my personal page has a quote. Taking administrative shortcuts in the name of sensitivity is self-defeating. --SmokeyJoe [5]. Not 100% on point, but yeah, when a long-term editor makes a request like this, it's generally better to let it ride for a while just so it's really really clear which way the wind is blowing. 7 to 1 in less than an hour isn't there. Hobit (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW endorse. WP:SNOW says If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. There's no minimum !vote requirement. The MfD had the least chance of being successful of any MfD I can recall an experienced user filing, and that was obvious from the get-go. If I MfD someone's userpage on the basis "needs more reliable sources", that can be SNOW closed without a !vote cast. That the closer waited for seven !votes here is generous. This ANI thread, MfD, and DRV constitute a massive 1AM waste of editor-hours that could be better spent on more productive things like writing about Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
void close (both the WP:BADNAC and GeneralNotability's post-endorsement) ~~and relist~~. Had I known about the MFD, I would have !voted to keep, but I still think it was a poor decision to close it early. All closing something like this early does is risk exactly what happened here. If you think it should have been deleted, then you were denied the opportunity to express your opinion. If you think it should have been kept, then you were denied the opportunity to have this run to completion and go on record as a blowout endorsement of the article. Instead, what both sides got was a drawn-out meta discussion about process, which doesn't serve anybody's interests. And anybody who disagrees with the sentiment expressed by this editorial is free to propose my user page for deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've stuck my recommendation to relist, since at this point, that would obviously be more disruptive than just letting this be. But I stand by my assertion that the early close was inappropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge BHG to substantiate her accusations of partisanship with evidence that Ed and I even hold the partisan views she accuses us of. I believe Ed's view of the situation is accurate (thus my endorse), and I add that if we're supposed to be adhering to NPOV in the way BHG says we should, then we need to start deleting userboxes for editors' beliefs and opinions, too - those are similarly non-neutral. Finally, I note that BHG registered her objections on the Signpost article's talk page - that was the correct forum to engage in this discussion, not at XfD. We are at three-ish fora now (the talk page, XfD, ANI, and now DRV, though I guess you could call DRV an extension of the XfD), which frankly smacks of forum-shopping. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is the forum to evaluate the appropriateness of User:Ed6767’s close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, my point is that XfD was not the right forum in the first place. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:GeneralNotability, that's a find argument to put in the MfD. I don't want to argue against you but to just note that reasonable counter-arguments may exist. eg. Noting one !vote:
"* Keep. If "we" is the team, a defined group of editors, they can express their view in an editorial. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)" [reply]

I note that a superficial reading is that the "Wikipedia Signpost" speaks for "Wikipedia", and so hatnate amendments might be needed to ensure that authorship cannot be read as the entirely of Wikipedia, or WMF, and if not done, deletion might be appropriate.

In any case, the rapid close by a non-admin new editor is not a credible decision to go on the record. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VPM, too, and a suggestion for another signpost talkpage. The VPM discussion is listed on CENT too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. BADNAC. BAD SNOW. Decisions like this should not be made on the basis of the voices who rush in first. The applicability of WP:NPOV to the entirety of the project is a worthy question for discussion. While tolerance for variation is much greater outside mainspace, it is still the case that NPOV is a fundamental concept for the project. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Also firmly WP:SLAP User:Ed6767 for closing while WP:INVOLVED. As a matter of respect for deletion process, this is completely unacceptable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)~~ My apologies, on checking the date stamps more carefully, User:Ed6767 made related posts only after the MfD close, none were before. Not INVOLVED. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - There was hardly enough time for anyone to challenge the "keep"s. For such a heated topic, the outcome of an MfD shouldn't be determined before any real discussion takes place. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a heated topic, at least not in this community, which has been doing a quite good job chronicling Russia's crimes against Ukraine without tipping over into partisan bias the other way. This is one editor's bizarre 1AM quest, across multiple venues, to enforce a policy that doesn't exist. The community is under no obligation to humor such antics. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Tamzin. casualdejekyll 01:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:IAR and/or WP:NOTBURO. There is a zero percent chance of the MFD succeeding, so who closed it is irrelevant. (There is also a bit of mootness at play here too, with this op-ed now the subject of at least two other community discussions.) Calidum 01:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, neutral. On the one hand, Tamzin is probably right—this could very well be a waste of all our times and not really accomplish anything. On the other hand, BrownHairedGirl's nom statement was—in my view—highly aggressive and fundamentally flawed, which I think led to an immediate backlash and a snow keep. Looking at the comments section of the article itself reveals quite a few other viewpoints and rationales for deletion that weren't heard in this discussion, and maybe they should have been—at least, some weren't absurd on their face. This invasion is creating a lot of unprecedented discussion, and I worry about setting those precedents too hastily. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. WP:SNOW closure was an accurate reflection of where the discussion was headed, much like this DRV. The application of NPOV outside of articlespace is something that MFD does not get to decide. ✗plicit 03:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse snow close Last time I checked we had policies against censorship... Ie we are not "neutral" on censorship of knowledge. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The first sentence of WP:NPOV mentions encyclopedic content. That core content policy also mentions "article" and "articles" over 30 times. The policy never mentions talk pages or project space. This is in contrast to another really important policy, WP:BLP, which goes out of its way to say that it applies everywhere on Wikipedia, without exception. Clearly, this editorial cannot be in violation of NPOV because that policy does not apply to The Signpost, or any other civil, non-disruptive expressions of reasonable opinion outside of encyclopedia articles. The OP and some other editors object to the phrase "stand in solidarity" in the headline but Solidarity is described in our own article as an awareness of shared interests, objectives, standards, and sympathies creating a psychological sense of unity of groups or classes. Wikipedia, after all, is written and maintained by a community of volunteers through a model of open collaboration and our goal is free educational content for all of humanity, including the residents of Ukraine and Russia. The actual content of the editorial seems perfectly compatible with Wikipedia's goals, and the body of the editorial was calling for improved coverage of Russia, Ukraine and the current war. How can any Wikipedian object to that? Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per User:Hobit's comments. Could it have been left open longer? Probably. Was it snowing? Yes. - jc37 05:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn From what I read, there doesn't seem to be a strong, unanimous consensus, which is required for SNOW to apply. Firestar464 (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A delete nomination that is solely based on a clearly inapplicable Wikipedia policy (NPOV applies to article space) should indeed be speedily closed. MFD is not an appropriate venue to try to extend article space policy to other spaces. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Far too early to close under SNOW. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Agree with Stifle that it was too early to SNOW, especially for such an important discussion. I don't think the result will differ but I concur with SmokeyJoe's argument. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest I think that there should be a better method for the community to seek a retraction from a Signpost piece than nominating for deletion. There is a trust between the community and the newspaper that is weakened by nominating pieces for deletion outright, and the uncivil and bludgeoning character of the discussion both in ANI, the MFD, and the VPM thread is preventing the community from identifying other issues that could be tackled and offering solutions (e.g. the editorial process, low participation in the creation of the Signpost, unclear relationship between SP and the community, etc.). The MFD is mostly moot now but I hope the community can actually have a constructive discussion that benefits the Signpost long-term at the VPM thread after this whole ordeal. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse We're not required to be non-partisan, in non-article space, while people - including serval fellow Wikimedians - are the subject of war crimes. Anyone wikilawyering to reopen this shameful nomination really needs to stop and reflect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of assuming that people who have the opposite view are "wikilawyering", maybe AGF and still make the same point? Firestar464 (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse yes the close was a bit early, but that discussion clearly wasn't going to end in deletion and that's the point of SNOW. No good will come of relisting it, we'll get either another SNOW close as Keep in a day or so or a week of drama followed by a Keep closure. I haven't even seen any evidence that anyone other than the nominator even agrees with the nomination. Hut 8.5 12:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Hut 8.5. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Was the speedy close preemptive? Probably, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I think everyone here understands that there is exactly a 100% chance it will be kept if it were to be ran through the process again. All that needs to be done is to say "hey Ed maybe wait a smidgen longer next time" and for us to move on with our lives. Endwise (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. WP:SNOW says The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. I personally thing that there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement in BHG's argument, along with her supporters. I don't agree with her side, but the have a reasoned basis. but this also must be balanced with giving editors in the minority due process. I highly disagree that having a 50 minute deletion discussion gave due process to the minority, at least a day should have been given. I don't think the outcome will change, but this wasn't a appropriate close. Sea Cow (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, WP:NOTBURO. I'm really disappointed by the number of places this discussion has been spreading to. The original deletion rationale (NPOV) does not apply to the Signpost (only to mainspace), no other deletion rationale has been presented, no need to reopen this. —Kusma (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The nomination was based on a misrepresentation of NPOV so blatant (it plainly applies to encyclopedic content only) the discussion was never going to end in deletion. Prolonging forgone discussions is exactly what SNOW is intended to prevent.

If the MfD had somehow succeeded, it would imply a fundamental change in the NPOV policy. If NPOV applied to editors' writings outside of article space, many widespread practices would come into question. For instance, BrownHairedGirl displays a userbox openly advocating for the use of gender-neutral language. An alternate interpretation where NPOV applies to all namespaces would imply these sorts of non-neutral userboxes could not be displayed. (This is a plainly undesirable outcome). Policy changes this dramatic must follow broader community discussion and cannot come about through an MfD alone.

So (1) the nomination had next to no chance of success and (2) if the nomination somehow succeeded anyway, it would merely be a local consensus that, by itself, could not overturn the current consensus regarding where NPOV applies. – Teratix ₵ 15:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Closing the discussion after only fifty minutes wasn't a particularly good idea: for one thing, it was almost guaranteed to cause further drama, which is exactly the thing we all want to avoid here. But there was indeed no chance whatsoever that the discussion would be closed as anything other than keep, and at this point I don't think it would be helpful to prolong the debate any further. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and sanction BHG if she continues to forum shop. This is a textbook application of WP:SNOW, and BHG is appealing it here because she is displeased with the consensus that rapidly developed against her position (while throwing personal attacks at the closers of the MfD). That's not what DRV is for. BHG, drop this now before you end up blocked. You've registered your objections. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as snow close there is nothing in that editorial that violates any Wikipedia policy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as speedy keep per WP:CSK#3. As WP:NPOV applies to encyclopedic content, and not talk/project pages, there was no accurate deletion rationale offered in the discussion. Since there is proper justification for a speedy keep, I see no reason to relist the discussion or overturn it into any other result. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - "delete" and "keep" aren't the only possible outcomes of an MfD. Even if the nom was not persuasive, consensus may nevertheless form for some outcome other than "keep" (a page can be deleted, merged, marked historical, renamed, redirected, draftified, userfied, or other things, for a reason other than the reason the nom raised). I would have !voted had it been open for more than an hour. This was too fast, and frankly, quick-closes cause these discussions to spread to other pages, as people look for somewhere to discuss the issue. Telling people to shut up is rarely helpful, as can be seen here: had the MfD not been closed, we wouldn't be having this discussion here. So what did we save by snow closing? Nothing. Quick-closes should be saved for obvious procedural defects; this wasn't procedurally flawed. Levivich 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree this now seems moot since the editorial was retracted. Levivich 01:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is overturned, please close ~~VPT~~ VPM. We need one point of conversation on the issue, not multiple. Courtesy @A. C. Santacruz: as the editor who opened VPT discussion. Star Mississippi 18:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The village pump discussion is at WP:VPM, not WP:VPT. All the best, Miniapolis 19:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Miniapolis. Had the wrong tab open. @A. C. Santacruz absolutely nothing wrong with your thread, I believe it was created after the MfD closed. A centralized discussion (Not CENT, just the normal usage) will help us all the most is my .02. Star Mississippi 19:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Star Mississippi. I'll gladly close the thread myself if consensus exists to do so, but I hope at some point the community can get together and come up with ways to improve the Signpost. I've already volunteered to help out, seeing how thin they're being stretched with only a pair or so of editors for various sections without many breaks, but I think there are plenty of ways a good, cordial conversation could improve the Signpost in other areas as well. I hoped the VPM thread would bring about some of those positive discussions but it seems they are unlikely to happen right after this messy situation. Hope y'all have a good week :D A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse 'Twas a good close. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse SNOW close as speedy keep. It was a bit early, but I saw no objection to the editorial other than BHG's. WP:NOTCENSORED; this is a timesink. Miniapolis 19:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Rushing to close it wasn't a great idea. There was no emergency. No harm would have befallen anyone had the discussion been allowed to run its course, and closing that early is only likely to increase drama because the "losing" side will feel that their views weren't given time to air. That said, the nomination rationale was fundamentally flawed and there was not a snowball's chance of the discussion being closed with any outcome other than a resounding "keep". Discussions about the extent to which content policy applies to the project space belong at a venue like VPP, and reopening it now would only cause even more drama, ill feeling, and wasted words. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. A one-hour discussion by half a dozen people hardly counts as a fair examination of the issue. Let me be clear on my opinion. The Signpost may express opinions on Wikipedia issues and questions; it should not express opinions on main space subjects that should be dealt with in main space on article talk pages. In other words, The Signpost may report on topics and controversies in main space and current events, but it may not come down on one side or the other. That's an important point to discuss and decide here. We don't want people using the Wikipedia banner in The Signpost to promote their opinions, no matter how compelling those opinions are.Smallchief (talk)
Endorse - CSK#3 necessitates a (potentially) viable grounds for deletion. NPOV does not apply. Now, had someone suggested an alternate viable grounds in this DRV then I'd actually back overturning, because closing it within an hour was, probably, unneeded. However, that no-one has been able to provide a policy-backed reason in the meantime suggests that the pacey close was warranted. Now, there are non-policy grounds to argue for deletion (or amendment) of the page, both reasonable and unreasonable, but our deletion venues are not the forum for those. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow speedy renomination By definition, Signpost articles cannot violate NPOV so I think this specific nomination was closed properly. However, after reading through a lot of the debate on the article talk page and talking to the nominator I think that there are very real issues at play here and that the early closure prevented these issues from being debated out. While I personally oppose deletion here, I think those that that support deletion are entitled to be heard. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that’s a pretty terrible idea since we’re already basically debating deletion AGAIN. Allowing a third rapid-fire nomination (likely from BHG, again) is patently ridiculous. Dronebogus (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither endorse nor overturn: It's been made very clear now that the early close, likely to reduce time waste, has caused more drama and time to be wasted by contributors, so it's hard to endorse it. On the other hand, overturning it will only result in more time wasted by editors, and it's clear that discussion has become less about that one specific page and more about the overall idea of whether or not editorials like those should be allowed in Wikipedia/Project space. To me, the best way to advance here would be to keep the original MfD closed, close this and any other side conversation on the topic and focus either on the VPM thread or create an RfC on the topic. Isabelle ^🔔 23:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close keep editorial Since 2005 The Signpost has been the Wikipedia community newspaper. There is nothing controversial about editorials in a newspaper, and there is nothing controversial about this editorial in particular. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it IS obviously extraordinarily controversial, but I get what you mean— it’s not exactly an “edgy” statement it’s making. Dronebogus (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is this discussion still relevant? There's already a disclaimer hatnote and everything just seems fine to warrant keeping. Or "Endorse", as it's termed here. Gerald WL 01:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy close per WP:SKCRIT #3 ("No accurate deletion rationale has been provided"), which the closer didn't explicitly link but is quite close to the closer's expressed sentiment for closing. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing a discussion after 50 minutes and 7 !votes is just plain rude. It's a slap in the face for the nominator, and should be overturned on WP:CIVIL grounds if nothing else.—S Marshall T/C 13:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Closing after 50 minutes prevents many of those who may wish to have a say on this issue from doing so. It locks editors living in unfavorable timezones out of the discussion, thereby reinforcing known systemic biases that make Wikipedia an insular echo-chamber on many issues. It's also simply rude. Letcord (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Levivich who expressed my feelings on this more elegantly than I could've. Controversial SNOW closes are harmful as they will still waste editor time, but spread across other venues and discussing the validity of the close in addition to the original issue. Discouraging such closes is therefore important, even if the discussion will eventually end up at the same outcome. The purpose of SNOW is for clear, obvious cases -- not ones where there is a meaningful amount of controversy. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we overturn this what are all of you expecting? The article be deleted as default, starting probably ANOTHER deletion review, or that we go through the deletion process formally AGAIN? Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second one. I don't know why you put "again" in all caps, since the first deletion process lasted an hour. So yeah, I want it to "go through the deletion process formally again," this time for more than an hour. Also I want to speak up for the principle of not closing XfDs in an hour unless there is some obvious procedural defect, and not because the !voters in the first hour all !voted the same way. We need to recognize that one hour is not enough of a sample size. Levivich 18:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: DRV is about process. Discussions at XfD are, "Should this page be deleted?". Discussions at DRV are, "Was the XfD closed in accordance with our published processes?" In practice, DRV discussions sometimes stray into XfD territory, conflating the two types of discussions. That has certainly happened here, and I feel the pain of whoever gets the unenviable job of closing this DRV because they will need to tease those apart.
So, to answer your specific question, if this were to result in "overturn", what I would expect to happen is that the MfD close be backed out, and the discussion relisted for another week. And this is exactly why controversial discussions should never be closed early. The intent is to reduce drama. But in practice, it has exactly the opposite effect: we get a week of drama here at DRV, followed by another week of drama back at XfD. And if this gets closed as "endorse", we will have still had a week of drama here, so nothing gained. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, less than a hour and 7 !votes is far too little input for a snow close. Also, I note that the nominator of the MfD argued not only about NPOV but also WP:NOTSOAPBOX - that policy is a bit ambiguous on whether it would apply to the Signpost article in question but I am not really seeing any discussion on it. I think this warrants a relist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The policy states, This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages.. I see no ambiguity considering the project namespace isn't mentioned anywhere there, and the rest is incredibly specific. Bsoyka (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does however continue with Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. which implies that Wikipedia: space is not blanket exempted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that while this opinion may be controversial, it's not disruptive. Bsoyka (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion though, not an uncontestable fact. The reason why we have deletion discussions and deletion reviews instead of settling everything through speedy deletion/close is because in a lot of cases, whether a given policy warrants deletion is something that people disagree on or requires evaluation and research. In my mind this MfD is not nearly clear enough yet to make a summary decision and thus I can't endorse the speedy closure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The idea behind the snowball clause is to not waste editor time. It's clear that closing this discussion early did not prevent time wastage, and instead lead to more chaos spreading everywhere. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was a valid speedy keep though, as there was no valid deletion rationale provided. —Kusma (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That editor time is being wasted is not the fault of the closers, but the fault of the filer who is attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on Wikipedia. Reopening this would give that individual more attention towards her one-woman crusade. We should not allow that to happen. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Special:Diff/1079988210 may be of interest. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: There wasn't a valid reason given for deletion, regardless of how many people commented or how long the discussion was open. WP:NPOV applies only to encyclopedic content; those are literally the second and third words in the policy's prose. These facts lead me to agree that there is no chance the original discussion could have resulted in deletion, and the comment linked above by RoySmith reinforces my !vote even further. Bsoyka (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Close as moot given Special:Diff/1079987889. I maintain that the original closure was improper, but there's no point debating it now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was no valid deletion rationale, and nom was clearly pointy: SNOW keep was appropriate. Signpost is not an article nor is it even reader-facing, and it is "a newspaper" which can have an editorial stance no matter whatever context it is published. Kingsif (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse, but with explanation. First, on the other hand, the SNOW close was a mistake, and a serious mistake, even though it was snowing, because SNOW should be used with caution in controversial XFDs, and is mainly meant for uncontroversial MFDs. Second, however, the real problem is that MFD is the wrong vehicle for disagreeing with the Signpost. Attempting to delete a Signpost editorial that has already been seen is like putting a putting a photograph of Russian officials into a memory hole. We don't do this in a mostly free society. Perhaps there should be a mechanism, or a different mechanism, either for pre-publication review of Signpost editorials, or for post-publication withdrawal of Signpost editorials. If the community disagrees with an editorial, it should be struck out, not deleted. So the close should be Weakly Endorsed because the MFD was the wrong vehicle to disagree with the editorial. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "pre-publication review of Signpost editorials". It sounds like you're talking about Prior restraint, which is a frightening idea, antithetical to the basic principles of this project.
The idea that the community can impose post-publication censorship on a Signpost editorial they disagree with is almost as bad. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:RoySmith - I will try to explain. I know very little about the editorial process or editorial control of the Signpost. However, by pre-publication review, I was (clumsily) wondering whether some reform of the editorial review process could be considered. I don't know what that editorial process is, so cannot be more specific. I will point out that prior restraint of journalism is restraint by a governmental authority outside the organization of the publisher. If a newspaper is owned by a conglomerate, and the chairperson of the conglomerate reviews an editorial, that isn't prior restraint. It reduces the independence of the newspaper to being a house organ, but it isn't prior restraint. I don't know to what extent the Signpost is meant to be independent of the rest of the English Wikipedia community, and to what extent it is meant to be subject to any sort of control. That is what I meant by pre-publication review, a possible change in the editorial process. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:RoySmith - As to post-publication review, I meant that a process for withdrawing or repudiating an editorial would be less absurd than the idea of deleting it, dropping it into a memory hole, which really would be censorship. If this MFD wasn't post-publication censorship, then we have strange definitions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. This entire affair has been an object lesson in making mountains out of molehills, and it is impossible that this would get deleted through MFD. Perhaps a bit hasty, but it's been done and I don't see the result going any other way. --Jayron 32 12:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Agree with others that the nomination was defective and that that close was warranted on that record, and at the very least within reason, (which is how DRV works, it is definitely not, 'I want to participate in the deletion discussion, so reopen so we can drag this out'). If there was a "rush" or "haste", it seems a few are looking in the wrong place: deletion process rightly encourages discussion before rushing off to deletion, and it encourages other things before deletion noming and as we have seen, here, taking the time to talk-it-out is much more efficacious, effective, and less drama. Indeed, it is only civil, when at least five editors have worked together on publishing something that one NOT rush off immediately to make a defective, aggressive, and internally contradictory MfD nomination. So, if this DRV is suppose to send some other message in addition to the righteous endorse, it should be, 'don't rush off to file an MfD like that, the whole project will be better for the righteous forbearance' Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This entire affair has been a lamentable waste of everyone's time, and if BHG shops this to yet another venue I would support some kind of editing restriction. Good heavens. None of this was of any possible benefit to anyone. Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meh The idea that The Signpost is equivalent to a talk page does not bear out in practice (it's somewhat akin to the reasonable expectation that those with more experience or power can be held to higher standards). If the Signpost spewed forth an article containing foul language and illustrations of generally considered objectionable content, most people would be concerned and seek some kind of redress. Do that on your talk page and there's far more leeway. So this is not simply a non-encyclopedic content issue, which was the basis of the close. The discussion should have run longer, the close was premature... but, at this point, there's no alternative, it's not as if there was any possibility for a consensus to delete to have emerged .... as I said, meh. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse simply to get it over with. We could all have been doing better things than discussing this and while it is important for Wikipedia to remain neutral, The Signpost is not Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I doubt there's a lot of people outside WP that know The Signpost exists, let alone know what it's saying. Gazamp (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

26 March 2022

Mayabazar (2008 film)

Closed on the basis of no sources. There are multiple reviews here, here, here, and here. There is a long article on production here (can press Next two times), here, and here. This film is one of the few films where Mammootty plays dual roles as mentioned here and here. Source about release here. Source about box office performance here. DareshMohan (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure of AFD. Allow review of draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as a soft delete. With only two participants, there's no reason to not REFUND this, allow improvements (drafting is fine if preferred), and allow it to be renominated via AfD if the improvements are inadequate. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
restore Wow, the reviews are bad (they really don't like the movie). But so was the AfD. I'm good with claiming WP:SOFTDELETE applies and allowing a WP:REFUND. Hobit (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, restore article While it can be done as a draft, I don't see any reason we can't just directly restore to mainspace - the adding of the reviews is pretty quick and simple. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

25 March 2022

Valavanur railway station (closed)

Valavanur railway station – There is a general agreement among uninvolved editors that the result is a fair reading of the discussion but that the closing statement was an inadequate summary of the discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

In the deletion discussion there were several arguments put forward on what to do with the article, which is about a train station in India. A few different arguments were put forward:

The nominator, Buidhe, said that she could not find sources that would count towards GNG. The nominator proposed, as an alternative to deletion, that the article be redirected to a more general article.
Those who supported keeping offered a few different arguments. A few users argued that since WP:RAILOUTCOMES says that railroads are often kept at AfD, this specific railroad should be kept. Along a similar line, another user claimed that there was "consensus" that all railway stations should be kept. One user added citations to the article, with users saying that the citations satisfied concerns about WP:V.
Two editors supported draftification citing concerns about WP:V.
I expressed concerns regarding whether or not the article met the requirements of significant coverage.

The close was keep. WP:V has been addressed. The rationale for this close was fatally incomplete, resulting in an erroneous close as there being an affirmative consensus to "keep". That WP:V has been addressed is indisputable, but the close doesn't actually make any analysis on whether or not the article meets any relevant notability guideline. WP:DEL-REASON#8, which is wikipedia policy, notes that Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline can be deleted. I brought up this concern to the closer on their talk page. In the closer's response, they indicated that their close was in part based on the notion that There is a general consensus that railway stations are notable and that we keep them, which satisfies [Deletion reason] #8.

The closer made a mistake in how they ascertained what the consensus was. In this case, the relevant notability guideline is pretty clearly WP:GEOFEAT, which itself specifies that the notability of artificial features related to infrastructure should be evaluated under WP:GNG and that [t]he inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. Since this guideline is established community consensus, WP:CONLEVEL is relevant to this discussion; as a local consensus of editors at one particular AfD can't override community consensus on a wider scale regarding the relevant measure of notability. Therefore, policy cuts strongly against the notion that the closer could even entertain arguments all railroad stations are inherently notable; the relevant notability guideline pretty explicitly rejects this. As such, the close failed to properly assess consensus in light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As such, I'm requesting this deletion review in light of WP:DRVPURPOSE#1.

Given that only two users brought up concerns that the relevant notability guideline is GNG (me and Buidhe) and that the discussion on that point was not extensive, I request that this close be overturned and relisted. The purpose of a relist would be to allow for additional conversation on the extent to which sources presented in the discussion help satisfy WP:GNG. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)TL;DR: the close didn't actually address anything about the relevant notability guidelines. When I asked the closer for clarification, they said that all railway stations are inherently notable and, for that reason, they found consensus that the station was notable. There is community consensus against granting per se notability to these sorts of things on the sole basis that they exist, so there was a fatal mistake in how the closer ascertained consensus. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the close is not in keeping with P&Gs. Mere verifiable existence does not guarantee notability, and in this case supporters of keeping were not able to find any significant coverage. (t · c) buidhe 02:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist I have for a while now been bothered by the constant cycle of events every time a train station stub is nominated at AfD, where a bunch of editors appear and simply say "keep because train stations are notable and we always keep them" while failing to provide any examples of significant coverage, indeed asserting that it isn't even needed. I did not mention GNG in my !vote at the AfD because I knew that the keep !voters would ignore me entirely. In this particular discussion, multiple editors appeared and voted keep without even pretending to care about the article having zero reliable sources. No policy-based arguments were made to support the retention of this article, which still fails GNG by a mile (entries in an atlas are not necessarily significant coverage). Interpreting consensus is not the same as simply adding up the votes and seeing which argument had greater numbers. This close did not agree with Wikipedia policy, and should therefore be overturned. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse With not a single editor other than the nom suggesting deletion, keep was the only reasonable outcome: editorial decisions can be started to discuss a merger, but not with the weight of an AfD. "V is met" indicates that there is no policy base for deletion remaining. N is a guideline not a policy, which explicitly expects that from time to time it will not be enforced. This appears to have been a decision where N being contested did not sway the community. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Deletion policy is a policy. WP:DEL-REASON is a part of that policy and it explicitly notes that there is a valid reason to delete [a]rticles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. Ain't that a policy? — Mhawk10 (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion policy is the how. Notability is the why. You're correct as to the first part, but I had been intending to reference the underlying cause, not the process involved. Obviously, NN things are nominated for deletion all the time. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was a robust discussion and while I do think the closer should have done more to explain the close, I struggle to see another way the discussion would close with only one editor arguing for delete. (I do see the early draftify comments, expressed before sources were added). --Enos733 (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's an overturn and relist. The WP:RAILOUTCOMES argument that appeared early and got agreed with by others is highly erroneous. The closer would need to click the link to WP:RAILOUTCOMES and see what it actually says before assessing the consensus which in all fairness pretty clearly didn't happen there. It's not exactly a model closing statement either.—S Marshall T/C 09:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The three draftify votes were on the basis of there being no sources at all and thus failing WP:V. These concerns were addressed. If you look at past railway station AfDs, the closet's statement of There is a general consensus that railway stations are notable and that we keep them is absolutely correct. WP:GNG is a guideline, not policy, and it is perfectly reasonable for editors to decide that it is not required for a particular page. NemesisAT (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the closer, I believe I have determined the consensus fairly accurately and that the OP's assessment that I made a mistake in determining it is erroneous. While I ascertain the closure statement to be lacking in words and have offered to amend, as I explained on my talk page; the draftification arguments argued for draftification for it being unsourced while also claimed it be probably notable- which was resolved later after adding sources making them moot. The Hindu article (WP:THEHINDU) provided was not used in the article, which I later put it on the talk page for a future use. Provided this, I determined it to be a keep and closed it as such. S Marshall's comment that I didn't click the WP:RAILOUTCOMES and didn't read it; lacks any ground and is fallacious and fatuous. I mean I'm not a fool not to click on it in an AfD while closing it, and which was mentioned thrice. His comment is purely a bad faith one. I did verify the book referenced [and The Hindu article] post which I concluded that WP:V is satisfied nullifying the draftification arguments. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RAILOUTCOMES reads Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD, which this article satisfies. Personally I would go further and say disused stations that can be verified are generally kept as well. NemesisAT (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you under the impression that we keep things because they're verifiable, DaxServer?—S Marshall T/C 11:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am under the impression that we keep things because they’re notable. My closure statement might have given out the impression that your question poses. Like I said I’ve already offered [earlier] to amend my statement to better reflect [that it’s not because of just WP:V] — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · c) 11:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, I think there's a whole lot more to AfD than notability. Did you give weight to any other policies in your close? Anything from WP:NOT, for example?—S Marshall T/C 12:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of WP:NOT do you feel this article falls foul of? NemesisAT (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that as written, it likely fails the first limb of NOTDIR. It's sourced to timetables and a .pdf which doesn't contain the search string "Valavanur". That could possibly be overcome by developing the article, because The Hindu source that isn't yet cited does contains one tiny bit of information that isn't pure directory: to whit, that Valavanur has a problem with low capacity because it's not a block station. This is the only non-directory information that anyone has found. But that brings up the RAILOUTCOMES problem I mentioned earlier. A low-capacity passenger station that isn't a block station, is better described as light rail, not heavy rail, so implementing RAILOUTCOMES strictly would in fact lead to deletion.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced it falls foul of WP:NOTDIR, even if all the sources are timetables. It isn't formatted as a simple listing, it's formatted as an article.

I have never heard of a "block station" before but if you're referring to a station without a passing loop, much of the Far North Line and Kyle of Lochalsh line could be classed as "light rail"! I don't think that's an accurate definition of light rail. NemesisAT (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you this more times than I can count, but RAILOUTCOMES is neither a policy nor a guideline, and I'd really appreciate if you'd stop acting like it is. "This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." You cannot just say "per RAILOUTCOMES" and silence any concerns about verifiability or notability. That you cannot cite any policies or guidelines to support your position speaks a great deal as to its lack of validity. You say that "GNG is a guideline, not policy", but a guideline still trumps something like RAILOUTCOMES. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't just say "per RAILOUTCOMES". I expanded by writing I don't see how deleting this would improve Wikipedia as having articles for some stations and not others would create inconsistency. Likely to be sources available offline and/or in the local language. This is a valid rationale that wasn't challenged, except for the ad hominem It doesn't apply. NemesisAT never actually cites policy in their !votes at AfDs. from yourself. NemesisAT (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"NemesisAT never actually cites policy in their !votes at AfDs" is an entirely accurate statement, and you know it. If you'd like, I can compile a long list of policy-deficient or even blatantly against-policy votes you've made at various AfDs to prove the point. I don't see how deleting this would improve Wikipedia as having articles for some stations and not others would create inconsistency See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Likely to be sources available offline and/or in the local language See WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Your entire rationale was and is invalid. Your arguments are fallacious and border on IDHT. You cannot provide sources that demonstrate notability, so just admit this article fails GNG, which we all know is true. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Reasonable reading of the debate and not inconsistent with policy. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse accurate close regarding the debate Atlantic306 (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse and relist The closer is to determine the result of the discussion, and they did that. They are not supposed to be a supervote. "Weak" because they implied that wp:ver was the criteria or a lens to weigh arguments. Relist because under the guidelines, this article should have been deleted. Not only the letter of the guidelines but also the spirit of them........not notable by any meaning of notable.North8000 (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn not a decision for a non-admin when there are disparate opinions and a topic area that isn't settled w/r/t notability. Star Mississippi 18:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
bad close. Meeting WP:V doesn’t speak to the nominators rationale for deletion of not meeting the GNG. Bad nomination, nomination needs to evaluate the possibility of a redirect prior to listing, and if redirect is on the table, WP:ATD-R applies and the discussion should be speedy closed. The D in AfD is for deletion, not discussion. AfD should not be used to open ended questions. Deletion was not on the cards. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist is a negative because there’s no chance the discussion will turn to a consensus to delete. Let it stand and advise to read WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A 2021 RfC found that [m]ost users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting. WP:BLAR itself actually specifies AfD as a method of handling contested blank-and-redirects. Seeing as this was a controversial blank and redirect proposal, Buidhe made the right call in sending it to AfD rather than unilaterally performing the BLAR herself. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No User:Mhawk10, along the lines of your procedure, User:Buidhe prematurely escalated. If Buidhe thought it too controversial for a bold redirect, then they should have used Talk:Valavanur railway station. There was no evidence of a controversy for AfD to settle. Article talk pages should be used first, and if it becomes a dispute over a WP:Pseudo-deletion by redirection, then and only then should it go to AfD.

The real problem with these premature AfDs is the lack of substance and focus in the AfD nomination, and that makes for a meandering unfocused AfD discussion, as happened.

If it needs AfD, the AfD needs a better quality nomination. That will not be achieved by a relist. It will be achieved by following the advice at WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (involved) Appellant's rationale seems reasonable, and relists are relatively cheap. The discussion sort of got side tracked from the original rationale with the WP:V concerns, the V got resolved but the nom's argument sort of got ignored. Jumpytoo Talk 07:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse - A valid conclusion from the discussion, where No Consensus would have also been a valid conclusion. The closer should have provided a better explanation of the rationale for the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (involved) per nom. XtraJovial (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist firstly a poor close, in terms of explanation and citing a non-relevant policy, but secondly railoutcomes is on particularly weak grounds in terms of an explanatory supplement because it's trying to use an essay as its further info. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without prejudice to a merge discussion (involved). When we have a verifiably extant railway station (which we do) there is no chance at all of AfD ending in delete - the only possible outcomes are "keep" or "merge". If the nominator or anyone else thinks this lacks sufficient notability for a stand-alone article then they should nominate it for merging to the appropriate article (in most cases that would be the line or system that it's on). However they should also be prepared to either explain why this station is different to any others on the same line that have individual articles or nominate them all for merging (because otherwise the discussion will just be a waste of everybody's time). I would also recommend that prior to any discussion (merge or AfD) time is spent searching for sources in Tamil (which is the language sources are most likely to be in) so that the discussion is an informed one. Expecting a railway station in India built in the 1870s to have a massive amount of sources available on the internet in English is foolish. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
quite right. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without prejudice to a merge discussion, mostly per Thyrduulf. Which isn't to say that the close was handled well. But the final result was correct. Hobit (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recent discussions

23 March 2022

Priyanka Choudhary – "Delete" closure endorsed. The draft at Draft:Priyanka Choudhary has now also been reviewed by another editor, as requested. Sandstein 06:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Article was deleted with the stated reason of lack of notability WP:N which is not correct as the actress has done four lead roles. Two main lead and two parallel lead roles. According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Choudhary and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Choudhary (2nd nomination), the article was deleted because Choudhary had only one significant role. Her lead roles in four different bollywood films were considered unaccredited because those films were not box-office hits. But it should be noted that still, Choudhary has done more significant lead roles which was in a web-series named '3g gaali gloch girls' of Ullu app. It is a significant lead role because the series was declared one of the best indian web-series in 2020. Please check [6].
To enforce this point: Choudhary is currently playing lead role in Udaariyaan(important point to be noted Udaariyaan is one of the top rated shows currently broadcast in indian television of which Priyanka Choudhary is the main lead).
Furthermore, she had also played the lead in 2019 in '3g gaali gloch girls' of Ullu app and she had two other significant roles too!
She didn't play the main lead but she was one of the parallel leads in Gathbandhan and Yeh Hai Chahatein which is proven through these:[7], [8],[9]. There is no clear definition of 'significant' in WP:NACTOR. So, in that case, Choudhary did have multiple significant roles in three very WP:N indian TV serials (even the two parallel lead roles are significant in indian television shows because parallel leads get equal screen space and have a strong base with central characters. Sometimes they have a better footage than the main leads and some will be halted midway based on the audience reaction and trps) and a web-series. Hence, we should give some weightage to other notable serials (Gathbandhan and Yeh Hai Chahatein) in which she acted in as well.
Important point to be noted is that Gathbandhan was one of the top rated WP:N serials of 2019 and Yeh Hai Chahatein is top rated WP:N serials which is still running. I have watched Priyanka in Yeh Hai Chahatein and her character came to an end in the show became it was killed of to form a important twist in it's plot.
Also, it should be noted that the reviewers who last reviewed this draft which was User:Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla is a "blocked reviewer"!!! So isn't his "review notice" "procedurally" supposed to be reverted? Commonedits (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the close as delete. But is this an appeal of the close, or a relitigation?
- Question - What is the appellant asking? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Asking for allow re-review of draft with respect to these points. Commonedits (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and please stop BLUDGEONing. You have restated the same points in multiple discussions without any change in outcome.
On second thought, Relist with the condition that if the AfD again closes as delete, then @Commonedits accepts this and does not appeal the decision again. (My logic is something akin to WP:ROPE but with articles and deletion as opposed to users and blocks.) casualdejekyll 18:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; disallow recreation. This article has been deleted four times in the past year, twice as the result of well-attended AfDs in which delete !voters made reasonable guideline-based arguments for deletion. The most recent of these AfDs was just last month. I really don't see how the community could be any clearer that it doesn't consider Ms. Choudhary to be notable, and allowing the article to be recreated yet again would not be respectful of that consensus. This is particularly true since the sources and roles described above all predate the AfDs, meaning that the !voters considered them and found them wanting. I would be open to allowing recreation if Ms. Choudhary plays additional roles or receives additional coverage in the future, but for now I don't think it would be helpful to try the community's patience further. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have reviewed and declined the draft again. The draft was submitted before the AFD was closed, and the AFD is a better review than an AFC review. I see no reason to request that the title be unsalted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The nominator's request is based on a misconception that deletion review is a place to re-argue the deletion discussion in full. It is not. It is a place to call attention to failures to follow deletion process properly. I would also consider listing at WP:DEEPER. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Stifle - I concur that the nominator is mistaken in thinking that DRV is a place to relitigate deletion discussions. They have filed three requests in 24 hours. However, I think that I disagree with the suggestion of listing Priyanka Choudha at WP:DEEPER. That is a list of articles whose review here is tendentious because of repeated filings here. I don't see multiple deletion review requests for the article. I see multiple deletion review requests by an editor. I think that the problem is that User:Commonedits may be a vexatious litigant. Are you, User:Stifle, asking about sanctioning appeals of this article, or appeals by this editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose the latter, in which case WP:DEEPER probably isn't (yet) appropriate. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 March 2022

Bhumika Gurung (closed)

Bhumika Gurung – Null outcome. The nominator shows by his actions that he no longer wants a version of this article to exist in draft space, and nobody wants the decision overturned, so there's nothing left to do.—S Marshall T/C 17:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Article was deleted with the stated reason of lack of notability WP:N which is not correct as the actress has done several lead roles. She was the lead with titular role in Nimki Mukhiya & Nimki Vidhayak and also negative lead Mann Kee Awaaz Pratigya 2. Apart from these lead roles she has also done prominent roles in films. She is verified across all social media platforms as a notable actress. So, I request the article be restored to draft space so that I can make suitable edits to it, to make it suitable for mainspace. Thank you. Commonedits (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have fixed the malformed listing. Most recent AFD listing is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhumika Gurung from 2018. The closing admin is deceased so notification step is skipped. This was followed in 2019 by some edit warring to revert the redirect closure, which was eventually restored and protected. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the deletion if this is an appeal of the close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 13:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow review of draft.
- Procedural question - Redirect is locked due to sockpuppetry - Who should decide whether to unlock if draft can be accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - An administrator can unlock it following the acceptance of the draft by an AfC reviewer. ––FormalDude talk 19:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Close as moot. A draft by the editor requesting review, Commonedits, existed at Draft:Bhumika Gurung until 24 March 2022, at which time Commonedits requested deletion of the draft with the {{db-g7}} tag (deleted diff), and it was accordingly deleted. Because this indicates that Commonedits is no longer interested in the draft, this request is moot. Sandstein 08:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bhavika Sharma (closed)

Bhavika Sharma – Null outcome. The nominator shows by his actions that he no longer wants a version of this article to exist in draft space, and nobody else wants the decision overturned, so there's nothing left to do.—S Marshall T/C 17:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Article was deleted with the stated reason of lack of notability WP:N in 2019. However, now she has become a notable actress. So, I request the article be restored to draft space so that I can make suitable edits to it, to make it suitable for mainspace. Commonedits (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have fixed the malformed listing and added a link to the most recent AFD above, and remedied the nominator's failure to notify the deleting admin. The article was most recently deleted under CSD:G4 in January. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the deletion if this is an appeal of the close.
- Allow review of draft if that is what is being requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Close as moot. Same issue as with the request above: on 28 March 2022, Commonedits themselves requested and obtained the deletion of the draft ([10]). Sandstein 11:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 March 2022

Brett Perlmutter – Relisted with the agreement of the closer. There are also suggestions that a fresh AfD, perhaps restricted to established editors, would be better, but I don't see clear consensus for this course of action here. Sandstein 07:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

believe the closer of the discussion incorrectly interpreted that consensus was not reached. All comments supported deletion, except for comments from the account that created the page in the first place, and who has made few other contributions to Wikipedia. Some comments supported merging some data into existing article, but consensus appeared to be for deletion Ksoze1 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn~~ Consensus was reached. Only disagreement came from the user who created the BLP under discussion. Said user's only contribution to Wikipedia was the creation of this BLP. Discussion supported the assertion that the subject fails to meet the notability requirement. Only disagreement came from the article creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoze1 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Your listing here implied that you wish to overturn the decision, so adding a further bolded comment may incorrectly lead the closer here to believe that there is more support for overturn than there is. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, that comment is factually incorrect. As well as the article creator, the original AFD nominator was in favour of some merging, as were two other contributors. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct. What I meant was that the lack of consensus was whether to delete outright or to delete and merge some data. From what I can tell, the only editor who argued for keeping the BLP was the creator. I do believe that consensus is possible outside of SadHaas and Lobsteroll's comments Ksoze1 (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Clarifying here: I was the original article creator and was not in favor of merging or deleting. No consensus was achieved. Keeping the article is very much in play, as editors other than myself have put forth valid arguments as to why subject meet the BLP requirements Lobsteroll (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Per the archived debate, the only editors supporting preservation of the article were Lobsteroll and IP address 67.53.60.250. - No registered account other than Lobsteroll suggested that the article be kept, although Lobsteroll did vote to "keep" three different times Ksoze1 (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I'm curious whether Stifle realized that the discussion had just been relisted only seven hours earlier. It apparently hadn't been successfully removed from the old AfD log, so it probably looked as though a week had already elapsed post-relist. In any event, I agree with BD2412's relisting comment that further input from experienced editors is needed. The discussion had a high proportion of inexperienced editors making questionable arguments and !voting multiple times, and there's a reasonable change that a second week of discussion will yield higher-quality participation. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that is a valid point and something I missed. Whilst there is no requirement that a relisted discussion be left open for a full week, it might well have been better to leave open and see what develops. If User:Ksoze1 would be satisfied by that, I am happy for the AFD to be speedily reopened and relisted for another week. Should that happen, I would ask that whoever performs that task strike all the duplicate !votes, which I had to wade through. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Absolutely satisfied for discussions to be reopened. I think additional commentary would be very helpful in deciding outcome, and agree that duplicate votes should be struck. Ksoze1 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Keep AFD closed. Very Clear that this was a no consensus case. Very clear also that Perlmutter meets BLP requirements of noteworthiness for more than one event. Reopening for discussion is totally unnecesarry . Lobsteroll (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Hi Stifile. I think this discussion page is a good indicator of the !votes that are to amount to a non consensus should the page be relisted. Lobsteroll (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Note SadHaas' contribs seem to be only about this entry Lobsteroll (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @user:Extraordinary Writ, per Stifle's confirmation that this should be speedily reopened and relisted for another week, would you be open to blacking out the close (BD2412's relist is already on the page) so that the original relisting can be fulfilled? To honor concerns voiced by the original creator of the article, I feel that a more experienced user should take this step Ksoze1 (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Relisting was indeed unnecessary here as no clear consensus was reached. I created original page but other users did not support deleter or merging, as Perlmutter DOES meeting BLP notability requirements. See original discussion. AFD should remain closed / not relisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobsteroll (talk • contribs) 16:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking second bold-faced comment by the same editor, who I will now topic-ban from continued participation in discussions on this subject due to their behavior. BD2412 T 04:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. Agree with BD2412's relisting comment that further input from experienced editors is needed. Seven hours post relisting was insufficient for additional commentary from experienced users — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadHaas (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I read “no consensus” with no sign of a consensus developing, and no imperative to do anything. Follow advice at WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that in the case of a discussion being tainted, or suspected of being tainted, it is better to close and make a fresh start on a couple of weeks (not two months). While a good closer can sift and discard the meatpuppets, this is much more challenging for the average editor, and in these discussions the average editor who should be heard.

Note that the tainting goes both ways, with the AfD nominator being a WP:SPA and suspect WP:DUCK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Need more experienced editors to participate in this AFD. See WP:Discussions for discussion#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brett_Perlmutter. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (uninvolved) The only established user who made an actual argument and not a brief perfunctory comment was Extraordinary Writ. The claim that I do not believe there will be further useful arguments generated is unsupported as there is no reason to assume other AfD regulars won't participate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as original relister. Once the discussion had, in fact, been relisted by me, it should have been allowed to proceed. This was quite frankly a very fishy discussion from the start, with an excessive amount of activity on both sides of the argument coming from accounts that are otherwise very low-activity accounts. A deeper look by more seasoned editors is required. BD2412 T 04:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist because the most recent relist had only lasted for 7 hours and wasn't long enough to generate more consensus. casualdejekyll 18:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
endorse I agree with User:SmokeyJoe that better to close and give a fresh start. Given level of noise and discord even among experienced editors, humbly including this opinion as potentially contributing to no consensus, my sense is that is the most wise way forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.220.95.38 (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could the closer consider relisting as a semi-protected AfD, please. It might also help to semi-protect this DRV.—S Marshall T/C 08:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of a mess. I agree with relisting and having the AfD semi-protected. Starting a new AfD with semi-protection would also be fine. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse - On the one hand, the close was a valid exercise of judgment by the closer, and I concur that both "sides" had already presented their arguments and that neither position was likely to persuade the side. ~~On the other hand, the closer was rude to the relisting admin in cutting off discussion a few hours after a relist.~~ Letting it run for another seven days would have been better, but the closer was within limits. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, as I admitted above, I did not realise the relist had been performed the same day, as it was still coming up in the "awaiting closure" log of the 21st. I politely invite you to withdraw the suggestion of "rudeness"; I was at worst "careless". Stifle (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to say, this appears to be a an understandable oversight rather than rudeness. BD2412 T 14:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn to Relist - It appears that there was a slow-motion race condition, known in Wikipedia as an Edit Conflict, and that one closer was relisting while another was closing. The best action is to Relist, but recognize that the Relist will still probably result in No Consensus, because both "sides" have presented valid arguments. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of User:Robert McClenon in identifying the problem of race condition; however, it seems to me that there is a first-order issue here, which is that the original AFD was created by user:SadHaas, who is a clearWP:SPA. As user:SmokeyJoe points out there seems to be WP:DUCKs at play. The most effective way forward is to close out the AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.220.95.38 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I also concur that extended the AfD will likely result in no consensus. Likewise, as @SmokeyJoe points out, relisting and restricting the AfD is suboptical because it unnecessarily discriminates against less experiences editors. Keeping the AfD closed -- at least for now -- seems like the right way forward for the community. 50.220.95.38 (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IPs should be banned from all project space discussions. If you have even registered an account, you are breaking WP:SOCK by posting here. Even if you have never registered, your past involvement is not available for scrutiny. Please WP:Register if you want to get into backroom discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a policy anywhere? I don't think that it is. Regardless, IP, if you don't want to be affected by semi-protection then you can just register for an account and do the whole four days ten edits thing casualdejekyll 23:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROJSOCK. Editing projectspace while not disclosing their main account is a SOCK violation.

New accounts and IPs who look like they know what they are doing in this far back room look like WP:DUCKs. So I ask the IP: What is your editing history and how do you come to be editing this page? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given the direction this has gone (and as the editor who initiated the AfD review), might I propose as a compromise that the first AfD remain closed, and per the suggestion of @SmokeyJoe, that the AfD be reopened in a week or two (not two months), semi-protected against contributions from IP addresses or suspected WP:SPA. I would like to defend that although I am not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, I have had my account since 2015 and am certainly not a SPA or DUCK. I consider myself one of the "average editors" whose voice should be heard here, and I invite (encourage) any established user to reach out to me on my talk page, where I will gladly explain how I landed on this page and my role in this discussion. Ksoze1 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ksoze1: You have a grand total of 52 edits, and a five-year period of inactivity before suddenly reappearing to participate in the deletion discussion for this article. That is odd, to say the least. BD2412 T 01:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Odd indeed. I have made occasional minor edits in that inactive period for which I did not bother to login (again, an infrequent contributor). I came across this page through the "notable alumni" section of Kent Denver School, had an opinion on the issue, and made a point to log back in to comment due to the (understandable) distrust of comments made by new accounts and IP addresses. I frankly did not even remember my password and had to reset it, but I will also pose the question: do you think I created this account 7 years ago on the off chance I would one day get to muddy the waters on an AfD discussion for Brett Perlmutter? Please note that of my 52 edits, several older ones were specifically to completely unrelated AfD, an area I have a personal interest in contributing to. I repeat that I consider myself an average user and although there has been plenty of strange activity, I am an unbiased contributor to this topic. Ksoze1 (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I'll add that I was also inactive for 16 months between April 2016 and August 2017. If I am not simply an infrequent, average editor as I claim to be, you must admit I took some impossibly deliberate steps in my past to appear to be one. Ksoze1 (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks Ksoze1 for the explanation, it is more than sufficient. I suggest that you should add something about yourself to your userpage.
  
  You do not look like SadHaas (talk · contribs), the SPA who started the AfD, poorly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I have a theory that SadHaas (talk · contribs) and Lobsteroll (talk · contribs) are the same person, playing both sides in a pitched debate as an elaborate troll. Whether this is the case, or whether they are two SPAs that independently happened to pop up at the same time to argue over this article subject, it's an unfortunate thing to wander into. BD2412 T 03:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Interesting theory. I have been under the assumption that Lobsteroll is Brett Perlmutter himself. Ksoze1 (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  While not impossible, the formatting of citations in the first version of the draft (which was Lobsteroll's first edit) are fairly precocious for a genuinely new editor. BD2412 T 05:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 March 2022

Template:Movenotice – There is no consensus to do anything here, mainly because it is not clear what the point of this request is. Sandstein 07:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Now, we do have a similar template (Template:Title notice) that is automatically added by RMCD bot. Originally, some people suggested that the template be made into a bot-only template, as seen at https://web.archive.org/web/20120620141501/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Movenotice and the 2012 TfD. But now we do have such a template.

I propose in this DRV that the following be done:

Undelete the old edits for Template:Movenotice and history merge them to Template:Title notice.
Undelete Template talk:Movenotice and move it to Template talk:Title notice/Archive 1. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: here is the TfD that resulted in deletion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I am missing the point here, but what problem is this proposal solving and/or how is it improving the encyclopaedia? --81.100.164.154 (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What will this usefully accomplish? Stifle (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This really didn't need a DRV and could have been requested at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge, and I see no reason not to grant the request here, pointless as it may seem. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This redirects to {{Title notice}} but my bot does not support that redirect. See the related discussion at User talk:RMCD bot#Use Template:Title notice instead in articles. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 March 2022

Category:Conservatives – The 2008 AfD closure is endorsed, and there is no consensus to recreate the category. Sandstein 21:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Since its deletion as a category in December 2008 and after 14 years, enough articles and categories have been created to more accurately determine who is conservative on English Wikipedia (just as the same category exists in other languages), being this is the main argument for its elimination, the supposed ambiguity between what is conservative and what is not (see Category:Conservatism). Conservatism is a political, social, intellectual, and religious movement just like any other, such as liberals, libertarians, communists, socialists, anarchists, etc. See as a reference of all these movements Category:People by political orientation. I ask that its removal be reviewed and reconsidered for a correct categorization on Wikipedia. Igallards7 (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the 2008 deletion as the main function of DRV. Advice: The category needs a parent article. Would it be Conservatist? That redirects to page that diesn't use the term, let alone define. Ensure the parent article gives an objective definition. Then, start a fresh CfD and request permission to re-create. Category expertise is at CfD, not DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DRV won’t enforce this 14-year-old deletion, and DRV won’t give blessing for any particular category either. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all the content that already exists in the encyclopedia, it is only enough to add the members of a political party that call themselves conservative in their name or people who publicly identify themselves as conservatives in a literal way, without giving room for interpretation. Igallards7 (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that this would be ok. Category space is not for creating definitions that don’t exist in mainspace. Members of “conservative” parties, for whom the membership is defining for them, can be classified specifically according to their party. If you disagree, I recommend opening a CfD nomination to propose creation, where I would oppose due to lack of a parent article or definition. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The category needs a parent article. Is this actually true? I could not find any policy or guideline which requires categories to have a parent article. The category FAQ does require categories to have parent categories, but it says nothing about parent articles. In fact, the FAQ section directly above the previously mentioned one discusses special rules for "categories which have a main article." This implies that categories which do not have a main article exist as well. Mlb96 (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Parent article = main article for to top level category.

Here, the category would be a parent, meaning top level, category.

This category needs a parent article, my strong opinion, because the definition is lacking and is arguable. Many self-asserted conservatives are not conservative, and many conservatives don’t self-identify as conservative, and the question as WP to whether being conservative is defining is unanswered, and the place to find the answers is in the parent article.

What does it mean to be conservative? Where is it stated in mainspace? These problems need to be resolved in mainspace, and then categories serve articles. Categories do not lead. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really interesting nomination. I see we've got a Category:Jewish fascists but Category:Conservatives is a redlink. Subject to what others might say here, personally I don't see why you can't just create the category. We don't enforce decisions as old as that CfD. I will say that "conservative" means different things in different places, just as "republican" does. (In my own home country there's virtually zero overlap between conservatives and republicans because Conservatives are a major political party that respects the monarchy and republicans are a small political movement dedicated to removing it.)—S Marshall T/C 10:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in that case it is necessary to create the respective subcategories of "conservatives by nationality", because we already have here enough information on Category:Conservatism by country. In other words, we can categorize specifically what conservatism is but not who conservatives are. Igallards7 (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin of the discussion apparently disagrees with that view on the applicability of G4, as they speedy deleted a recreation per G4 in 2020. But then they also abruptly stopped editing 8 months ago, so their view is less relevant. On the merits, Endorse and Oppose recreation, as I don't see how any of the arguments that lead to the 2008 deletion are less valid today; we still don't tolerate vague/subjective categories, which was the primary argument for deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R Creation Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and votings	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2022	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2021	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2020	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2019	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2018	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2016	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2015	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2014	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2013	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2012	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2011	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2010	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2009	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2006	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec

Purpose

Instructions

Steps to list a new deletion review

Commenting in a deletion review

Temporary undeletion

Closing reviews

Indian road articles

Discussion (Indian road articles)

55701 Ukalegon (closed)

Valavanur railway station (closed)

Bhumika Gurung (closed)

Bhavika Sharma (closed)

Leave a Reply