Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

Administrator instructions

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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

Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. 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);
  2. (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.)
  3. 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);
  4. 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);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
  9. For uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.

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

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. 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.
  2. 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=2021 February 24}}</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=2021 February 24}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2021 February 24|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.

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

It's rare, but not unknown, for a deletion review to be speedily closed.

  • 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).
  • 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.
  • 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

24 February 2021

23 February 2021

👾

👾 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to reopen the old discussion over the 👾 -> Space Invaders redirect idea. As far as I can tell it was last discussed in 2016, with the consensus that at that time it wouldn't work, since the icon looked different depending on the font. Within these past 5 years, it seems that the majority of providers have decided on the video game character design. (see the emojipedia entry) ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-channyan 07:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak endorse. Previous RfD closer here. This emoji still looks inconsistent across platforms to me - looks like a space invader on one device and a purple octopus on another. Deryck C. 13:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • A major concern at the RfD was that the redirect is ambiguous. This emoji is supposed to be an "ALIEN MONSTER", but that doesn't necessarily mean Space Invaders and there were suggestions at RfD that it should point to Bug-eyed monster or Extraterrestrial life. That argument hasn't been addressed. Hut 8.5 17:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse, concurring with the comments of User:Hut 8.5. On my Android, it looks like a purple octopus, except that two tentacles are either lost or hidden. On my Windows 10 desktop, it looks like a purple trash can, until I magnify it to 300%, and then it looks like a purple Halloween mask. So I have no idea what it is, and so I see no reason to unprotect it and allow this monster to invade us. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

20 February 2021

  • Annalisa Malara – Withdrawn as moot. This was a G5 deletion, so G4 will not apply to the re-created article. (non-Admin closure) Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Annalisa Malara (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

About a year ago, the article on Annalisa Malara was deleted. Since then, she has received Italy’s top civilian award, Cavaliere dell’Ordine al Merito della Repubblica Italiana, according to a recent article in The Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper. She was also named “Personality of the Year” by the Sky TG24 news channel. I have also asked for the corresponding article in the talian Wikipedia to be restored. "How this Italian doctor found Europe's Patient One and became a national hero". The Globe and Mail. 2021-02-19. Retrieved 2021-02-20. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Allow Creation, but there should be no need for deletion review. It appears that the article was not deleted for notability reasons, but because it was created by a sockpuppet, and there should be no barrier to creation by a good-faith editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have started a new article, but it's just a stub so far. I hadn't realized that the original article had been deleted for sockpuppetry, not lack of notability. I suppose that this deletion review can be closed now. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 February 2021

Patrick Ayree

Patrick Ayree (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Was not able to defend the page which I created and have new sources that could be used. Only three editors were involved in closing down the page and one of these said that if new sources came to light they may change their decision. Bivaldian (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse but allow recreation - the close was procedurally correct, but you are of course always free to recreate the article if you have additional sources. You may want to use WP:AFC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse The AfD closure was correct. However, you can recreate the article with additional sources that establish notability of him.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse, but the appellant appears to agree that the close was correct in October 2020. The article can be re-created, either in article space or in draft. In article space, it may be nominated for deletion if it does not establish general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse correct decision, but new sources doesn't preclude recreation. SportingFlyer T·C 14:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


Recent discussions

15 February 2021

Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case

Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article has continued notability since 2010; subject has been interviewed by Chris Hansen as 'victim zero' among numerous people who have been the subject of an investigation (including possible FBI investigations) into sexual abuse against Dahvie Vanity since 2009. The cyberbullying case is directly relevant to this as background and has been mentioned in most sources covering the incident.

The issues around the 2010 deletion focused on the fact the subject was a child; this is irrelevant, as they are an adult now. They have given on-the-record interviews with numerous reliable sources, and the continued mentions in numerous reliable sources for over a decade establishes a degree of notability for the event. The reason this page was deleted more recently was due to alleged BLP violations due to the inclusion of people's personal names (which were mentioned in RSes) and alleged questionable sourcing, which can be fixed with a rewrite and revdels. Bangalamania (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Given that it's been over 10 years, I see no reason that this shouldn't be allowed to be recreated. Having said that, I'm not sure we need to overturn the past deletion to allow that. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I recently recreated the page with the new info, and it was deleted by SlimVirgin, who mentioned BLP violations due to real names and allegations in the article. As far as I'm aware these were all backed up by reliable sources. −Bangalamania (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah, missed that, sorry. For the recent deletion, I agree with Stifle that G4 is inappropriate. For BLP concerns, I would suggest that the contentious names be removed and discussed on the talk page: if they are indeed in RS, there's no reason to scrub them from Wikipedia entirely as if they were unsubstantiated allegations, just to make conscientiously sure that they're not featured in the article inappropriately. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse Speedy as G10, not G4, as the issue is really negative BLP material, not how close it was to a previous article. Based on the sourcing presented here, I agree that SV's action was correct, just listed under the wrong criteria, and that no encyclopedic article can be made from this mess without violating our BLP protections. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This seems correct, G10, not G4. Can anyone who can see the history say that some of the content is G10 worthy and unable to be temp undeleted for this review? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn the recent G4 speedy deletion. G4 applies only to deletions via a deletion discussion. Whilst there was a live deletion discussion when this article was deleted, the deletion was expressed as done under WP:IAR. As such, the article did not qualify for speedy deletion and must be restored. If anyone wants to list at AFD, they can.
    If the closure of this DRV results in the article being undeleted, the closer should take care to only restore the edits from this month, and not the previously deleted content. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I deleted the article per WP:BLPDELETE because it contains serious allegations against a named individual and the sourcing is weak. There was no version I could revert to that didn't contain the allegations, which were not part of the article when it was deleted in 2010. I advised Bangalamania at WP:BLPN#Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case to open this DRV. During Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case, concerns included BLP1E, NOTNEWS, poor sourcing, lack of balance, non-encyclopaedic. SarahSV (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Which allegations and which named individual are you talking about? As far as I'm aware the sourcing was strong for all the allegations included in the article. If there was something so egregiously wrong in there, then I apologise, but as I say that could very easily be removed and the past revisions deleted ASAP. If you are referring to the sexual assault allegations against Vanity (which was my main reasoning for recreating the article), they are mentioned here in detail, and includes sources which mention the controversy and individual this article is talking about in their reporting. It should not be contentious to include allegations, so long as it's made clear they are allegations and not proven fact.
And re: the 2010 deletion discussion, as I've said before the BLP1E and NOTNEWS rationales no longer apply, as this is still something being discussed a decade after the actual events, and now links to a wider discussion about allegations of sexual assault and investigations into Vanity, which were revealed in 2018–19. These are interrelated events, but not the same. Perhaps the title and focus of the article should be shifted away from the 2010 events and focus more on the more recent allegations, but this is important as background – and was mentioned by a number of reliable sources which were included in the article. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Follow the advice at WP:THREE. Tell us three (and no more than three) WP:GNG meeting sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Here are sources which establish continued notability (& link to wider allegations of sexual abuse which are mentioned at the BOTDF article mentioned above): [1] [2] [3] – Bangalamania (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • There’s something about these sources that I don’t like, “lacks a distant perspective from the subject”. It feels like rolling gossip magazine coverage. I recommend allowing a fresh AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The cyberbullying isn't the reason I deleted it. The issue is the serious allegation against a named person, and the sources for that are weak and gossipy. Those allegations shouldn't be in the other article either. SarahSV (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Understood. I am here not talking about overturning the G4, but about the possibility of ever re-creating the article based on sources like these. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Even ignoring the serious allegations, it just isn't an encyclopaedia article. SarahSV (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It agree, it does not look like a viable encyclopedic topic. But for the sake of respect for process, it might be best for an AfD to test consensus, if someone wants to insist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Stifle. I know this is not relevant, but I also found another source. [4] Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse the article contained allegations that a named, non-public figure physically abused a child, as well as allegations that another person who doesn't have a standalone article here engaged in rape and sexual abuse of children. There was no indication in the article that either of them had been convicted of any sort of crime. The article even repeated allegations of sexual abuse made against one of these people which don't have anything to do with the ostensible subject of the article, other than that it was the same person. I'm sure there is scope for writing another article about this but we have to do better than that. Hut 8.5 20:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse- given the BLP issues, there is no way the article history can be restored. I have no strong opinions about making a new article from scratch, so long as it does not repeat those BLP issues. Reyk YO! 11:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Reyk:, I know you know a lot more about our BLP policies than I do. My sense is that when we have well documented accusations against a public figure, we do include them , but against a non-public figure we generally avoid doing so [5]. Am I getting our policies right? If so, are you saying that the person(s) named aren't public figures? Something else? I'd like to be consistent with policy here, but I'm not 100% sure I know what that is. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • overturn speedy I don't see how this meets any speedy criteria. If there is an issue with a party being named in the article it can be removed/delreved as needed. And it's not even clear if naming the person is a problem per our policies given I *think* that those rules don't apply to well-covered stories when the person in question is a public person. All that said, if/when this goes to AfD, I might well !vote to delete via WP:TNT. But speedy deletion is for exactly the cases defined in WP:CSD and I don't see a case that this meets any CSD criteria let alone the one provided. I'm willing to be pointed to a policy that says otherwise, but I'm not seeing anything other than IAR. And without seeing the article I can't support IAR here. Hobit (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse given the BLP issues, the correct nature of the old discussion, and the seemingly correct application of the new speedy deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 14:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @SportingFlyer:Could you clarify that? Are you saying it was a good G4, G10, falls under BLPDELETE, or something else? I'm not quite sure where you are going. Hobit (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I have no problem with the original discussion's result. I'm assuming the G4 is correct because I haven't seen the new version, but saying a G4 is inapplicable because there was no deletion discussion makes no sense as a speedy deletion was advocated for at the deletion discussion as an extreme BLP attack page. I think arguing otherwise is semantics. Also don't really care if this recreated but it does have to fix the problems of the old article, as Reyk notes. SportingFlyer T·C 22:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I got the strong sense that the 11-year-old article about a then underage girl was deleted because it was an attack page against her. Now it is because the person she accuses of attacking her, a public figure, is named. Do I have that right? Could someone please send me the deleted article (don't need the history, just the version deleted)? I'm having problems understanding the basis for this deletion--maybe it's just because I can't see it. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

14 February 2021

Fly Project (closed)

  • Fly Project – Speedy deletion overturned. Can be sent to AfD by anybody who is interested. Sandstein 08:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Fly Project (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Disputed Speedy deletion. This article cannot be deleted as speedy, since it's subject it's notable and the article already survived 2 AFDs (1, 2). I can't say about the last page version, but at some point in history the page has had a decent look, and eventually it can be restored at that state. XXN,

  • Allow Re-Creation as Draft - The article was not deleted for notability, but as advertising. The article can be re-created in draft, and an extended-confirmed reviewer will be able to accept it. No need to restore any previous versions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn Contra Robert McClenon, this (do we not have a shortcut for that anchor?) indicates that G11 is NOT one of the valid reasons to speedily delete content that has previously survived an XfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Survived AfD previously. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn G11 as per User:SmokeyJoe] and allow AFD - In this case, the rule is strange but clear. Notability and Promotionality can be decided by the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Article was ineligible for speedy deletion under this criterion as it has passed an AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Send to AfD I'm not sure two "no consensuses" means it "survived" (I might read "survived" as "kept") but there's enough doubt to merit further conversation. SportingFlyer T·C 14:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Pepperfry (company)

Pepperfry (company) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article has got deleted through CSD as WP:G4 though it was not similar to the previously deleted article. It had many new sources added, with significant coverage. I placed two undeletion requests at the deletion admin's talk page with no response. Maybe, they are busy, and therefore, i request a deletion review here. The person who nominated the page doesn't seem to have checked it properly or it doesn't qualify for G4 in any way. The last version was completely different from the one deleted in 2016. Tungut bey (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Allow Re-Creation in Draft - The draft title has not been salted. If the reviewer agrees that the draft should be accepted, the article title can be unsalted. Is the appellant asking for something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Robert McClenon:, The article was submitted as a draft only, it was then accepted and moved to mainspace. The page was deleted through afd in 2016 and the last version was not similar to that. It had many 2019 & 20's sources added.Tungut bey (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Undelete for review please. Can't assess G4 without access to the before/after versions, can we? Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Sorry, life, eh? WilyD 12:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Credible case that G4 did not apply, so send to AfD. Also, the AfD was years ago, and the SALTing was not done by consensus at AfD, so not generous leeway on the G4. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for keeping your perspective. I beg to differ with you on sending it to AFD and I would explain why. First, the person who marked it for speed deletion mustn't have checked when the previous article was afded and deleted or they wouldn't have G4 it only. The AFDed article was deleted in 2016 and the subject has since reveived a lot of coverage in reliable sources, an admin would be able to see it. They also don't appear to have checked online for new sources and to see if it now passes ncorp. I had cited around 30 reliable sources if memory serves me correctly and each covers the subject directly and in detail. Secondly, this article was put through afc and was approved because they found it to be notable. It was accepted by a seasoned editor. If the topic were not notable, they would have declined it there itself.Tungut bey (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I presume that the editors who tagged and deleted the article will want to nominated it a AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
        • An editor who has been around Wikipedia since 2014, who frequently participates in Article for Deletion discussions, and is an Autopatroller and GA contributors confused CSD with AFD? No way. If you see the editor has provided the link also to previous deletion discussion while G4'ing, so it makes this clearer they were not confused between CSD and AfD.Tungut bey (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for undeleting Pepperfry. I checked the page history and noticed that the page was G4'ed on the 5th January 2021 and the speedy deletion was declined on the very day by an administrator who stated It has been four years since the AfD, and it does make a better attempt at meeting GNG which i completely agree to, i have stated above in detail why it was not qualifying for G4. I see then David (deleting admin) steps in, first removes the funding section and references from the page, and eventually deletes the whole article. How could someone delete an article under G4 when the CSD was already declined by another admin. G4 says "this applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion." 80% of the articles i had cited as source were published after the AfD which took place five years ago (September 2016). The nomination/deletion was so erroneous it beggars belief. Jclemens did you check this Pepperfry (company)?Tungut bey (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Tungut bey, DavidNotMD (the user who edited the article prior to deletion) and David Gerard (who deleted and salted it) are not the same user. If they were, I would agree that that would be improper. As is, it's not clear to me why David Gerard deleted the page, but he may have been working off an old list of tagged articles, even though Lee Vilenski, who is indeed an admin, had declined the speedy tag with a reasonable rationale. As the article existed before it was deleted, I'm not sure I see a good reason for it to continue to exist in Wikipedia--we do not exist to either be a directory of companies nor to be a promotional venue for emerging companies. Jclemens (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Charles E. James, Sr. (closed)

  • Charles E. James, Sr. – Undeleted as contested PROD; let's not send the requester around the houses at random, see WP:BURO. @Philly jawn: please add the sources to the article promptly to avoid the risk of it being deleted again. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Charles E. James, Sr. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Reason for deletion: (Expired BLPPROD, unsourced BLP) Here are two sources:

  • "Charles E. James, Sr". Departmental Office of Civil Rights. Office of the Secretary, U. S. Department of Transportation.
  • "Charles E. James, Sr". Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. U. S. Department of Labor.

Not sure why this was unsourced. Please undelete it so it can be worked on. Philly jawn (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi, per [6] this doesn't need to be at DRV. Any admin can just undelete if you promise to add those sources. To be clear, this doesn't prevent a future AfD etc. Hobit (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Concur with Hobit that this doesn't need to be at DRV, that any admin can undelete this in good faith anticipation that sources will be added as stated. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Undelete per request, which could have been done at WP:REFUND or by asking an admin. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, so will anyone here do this? Do I have to now go elsewhere? Philly jawn (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • If you had asked the deleting admin about it, it could have been solved immediately. Now, has you have initiated a formal DRV, you have to wait for this to close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 February 2021

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tariq Nasheed (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) ([[7]]|restore)

Person is not notable at all, this person frequently posts black supremacist views on Twitter Stonksboi (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Procedural Close - This appears to be a misplaced AFD nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Twitter is not directly relevant to the subject's notability. Some Twitter trolls are notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy close last deletion discussion was in April 2015 so it’s far to late to contest it. In this case a new AFD makes more sense.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy procedural close - This belongs at AfD, and in any event the nomination does not allege any violations of policy. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 February 2021

Category:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

1) New information has come to light- the origin of this nomination traces back to a December of last year when a series of category nominations relating to Asian diasporas. (Specifically it is a followup to this nomination) At that time I did not participate so I wasn't able to provide the necessary sources back then. It also appears that few of the voters had even bothered to research the subject WP:BEFORE voting for deletion, which they bear the burden of responsibility. Regardless of what the process was, the ball was already moving and by the time I came around to defend this category's existence, most of them had already made up their minds. I will also disclose that a third CFD over a category I created after merging the previous one with another. It was nominated for G4, but not flagged as such and thus currently remains an active discussion.

Specifically the new evidence I wish to point out is that there are a now sources which clearly illustrate from individual reliable sources how people seen in the category should belong, per WP:DEFINING guide. I linked an RFC containing this exact text to the discussion, however I'm sure if any of the participants have seen it. (all emphasis mine)

A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, in Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement, Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio.

  1. ^ in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form

... were the Shanghainese capitalists, including the father of Tung Chee-hwa ...

... Son and Heir Tung Chee Hwa‘s career demonstrated the political adaptability that was typical of the Shanghainese who came to post - war Hong Kong.

Further, there is a lot of information about how Tung Chee Hwa's career is helped by being a member of this group, satisfying WP:OCEGRS.[1]

  • As a Shanghainese from the old treaty port of Ningbo which spawned many leading Chinese commercial families, Tung fits in with the so-called “Shanghai gang” around President Jiang. The group’s members are viewed as modernising and opportunistic but politically conservative.

Fundamentally there is an issue with the same five or so editors who consistently vote to CFD, leading to legitimate content being thrown out for whatever reason (Wikipedia:Baby and bathwater analogy) (if this allegation is against the rules I will remove it)

There were also a number of superfluous statements relating to social anthropology that were made, swaying the outcome of the vote towards deletion. For example I pointed out that the classification is in fact an ethnicity by some standards, but this was completely ignored by the other editors.

2) There was a procedural error in the discussion where one aspect of WP:OCEGRS was completely ignored. "Dedicated group-subject subcategories ... should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category may be created, but that it must at least be reasonable to create one.

After I pointed out that Shanghainese people in Hong Kong exists, and two of the delete voters admitted that the article is perfectly fine. I found a piece of online journalism which explicitly lists 11 people who could forum the nexus of the category, and I was told it merely belongs in an article. There is no real reason this category should be singled out. I have also since expanded the head article to a length of 20k bytes, where as it was just a fraction of this before. Prisencolin (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse as properly closed at the time. New information? Have you discussed this with the closer? You should. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I spoke to @Good Olfactory: about this and he was the one who recommended DRV if I was not satisfied with the outcome.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
      • You mean User talk:Good Olfactory#Category:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent. I meant, did you ask the closer about your new information and how to best move forwards. This DRV is not forward looking. You put GO in a difficult spot, he should not encourage you to take this particular issue to DRV, but as closer he must not discourage it, as a matter of principle. This is not for DRV because: No content is deleted; and, there is no criticism of the CfD process itself; and, there is no complaint that the closer mis-read the discussion. Instead, you have come forward with “new information”. Does your new information refute CfD !voting statements? No, not obviously, it is too subtle at best. The war forwards I suggest is a talk page discussion somewhere, and perhaps an RfC. Be warned however, my gut feel from reading the discussions is that in the end you may not be agreed with. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
        • User_talk:Good_Olfactory#Gauging_possibility_of_DRV I did message him later presenting my new evidence, and he replied " I have no objection to a DRV for the discussion that I closed," and saying the decision was mine, and mine alone. The new evidence is an analysis of reliable sources which describe several individuals as belonging with the category (see one of my comments below for the link well). I opened a CFD at some point but it was closed (by a participant in the CFD) for violation of RFC rules.
        • I'm not trying to argue against fundamental nature of the CFD, as this is prohibited at DRV per "to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed)." However now that you specifically asked of me, I will contend that the CFD process has had issues with its insular nature for years. In 2009 DRV overturned the delete closing of a CFD, with the admin noting: "Unfortunately, one of the shortcomings of CFD is that it is a very low-traffic page, so it is more likely than with, say, AFD, that a page which is genuinely encyclopedic and useful will be deleted due to WP:SILENCE". Note that several of the !voters at that discussion are still active at CFD and thus I believe is the same issue that led to Category:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent to be deleted. I have attempted to highlight this trend at WP:ANI after lengthy dispute with several users turned uncivil. --Prisencolin (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
          • It is true, there is a history of criticism of the CfD culture itself. You could try asking User:Good Olfactory if CfD is broken. I may have made that allegation myself, but it was a provocative allegation, and a long time ago. Back then, I had the impression that closers were sometimes WP:Supervoting CfDs with poor participation based upon how they usually closed. Subsequently, I modified my allegation to "CfD needs more diverse participants". Anyone who agrees with this may consider adding themselves to Category:Wikipedians who say CfD needs more diverse participants. I learned that Wikipedia category lore is esoteric, hard to grasp initially, but based on a firm logic. Looking at this particular CfD, I see zero hint of a Supervote, or a problem with process. I believe that post-close new information calls for a fresh talk page discussion, not a DRV nomination. I am not sure what talk page is best, but except for asking advice, I advise against using anyone's user_talk page. If in doubt of the best place to discuss, I recommend asking at WT:CfD. It is possible that this DRV could mandate a "relist" of the CfD based on your new information, but that is not my !vote, I am not persuaded that your new information overcomes others' reasons for not having this category. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Forum shopping (statement by participant, also in many of the listed CfD) — Prisencolin did not participate in the first 4 CfD; that does not make it "new" information. Rather, that makes it precedent that we follow for subsequent discussion. Multiple editors have explained that we don't categorize "by descent" from cities or regions. The original migrants may be categorized as "People from" the city or region, but only where notable and defining. That matches the claim for Tung Chee-hwa. A person born in China should not be categorized "of Chinese descent". Their immediate decendents after emigration may be of "Chinese descent". These are well established guidelines upheld at CfD. Prisencolin has been WP:VERBOSE, WP:BLUDGEONING, and spamming RFCs and other new discussions outside of CfD contrary to WP:RFCNOT.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Multiple users have been peddling the same misinformation that you are, probably because you are the one who originated said notion. In no way is there a rule that says “we don’t categorize by decent from cities or regions”, and the fact that you are removing mention of Wikipedia:Category_names#Heritage or WP:EGRS, which ostensibly contained said guideline is proof that you’re making it up AND covering your tracks. Further, this should be of no concern because I have evidence that “Shanghainese” is in fact an ethnicity, which you have not only have you ignored at least twice, but continue ignoring after I pointed out you are ignoring.—Prisencolin (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I have two more examples of people of Hong Kong birth, Carrie Lam and Maggie Cheung, along with a set of quotations for each seen here: User:Prisencolin/sh—Prisencolin (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Category:People of Chaoshanese descent has existed since 2010 and survived a CFD in 2016 so the "precedent" about Chinese descent categories has not existed for very long. Further, the implied notion of "Their immediate decendents after emigration may be of "Chinese descent" is very divorced from sociological and anthropological reality... Chinese sub-ethnic communities persist long after the first generation of diaspora to a foreign country.
    • Actually, if you look at the previous four discussions in which consensus was said to have been reached. 1, 2, 3 (all nominated on the same day as the "Shanghainese" category) they were deleted more on the basis of WP:NARROWCAT rather than on the basis of the intrinsic value of categorizing by sub-national or sub-ethnic identity. There was a !vote saying "We do not generally split national ancestry categories by region (or dialect spoken), for any nation, as there would be no end to that. ", but that was met with a rebuttal pointing out that Category:American people of French-Canadian descent exists.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse nothing wrong with the close. The forum shopping, bludgeoning, and darn near close to Wikipedia:Harassment should not be condoned. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:OCEGRS is apparently misunderstood by User:Prisencolin. The guideline provides a necessary condition for an ethnic category to exist, not a sufficient condition. On top of that, the discussants were not aligned (to put it mildly) on whether this concerns an ethnic category at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    • When I presented solid evidence from academic literature which explicitly called "Shanghainese" and "Ethnicity" I had no objections to those specific comments, other than your admission that an article about the subject was suitable for the project. The only objections to whether "Shanghainese" is an "ethnicity" or "ethnic category" not only came before I brought up those sources but were also purely speculatory e.g. "But this suffers further from some misconception that "Shanghainese" is a definable ethnicity. We would never have Category:Los Angeles people of Bostonian descent or anything akin to that." (this comment itself errs in not realizing that Hong Kong was not even the same country as the mainland and remains on a separate passport/visa system)--Prisencolin (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Endorse because the appeal is incomprehensible. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    • So its seems my English is poorer than I thought... what part needs clarification?--Prisencolin (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Answer to User:Prisencolin - None of it needs clarification. It is too long, and says too little. Any further attempt to clarify or explain would just provide more syntax without semantics. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
        • Ok.... well what can I even do to reduce the nomination message down to something comprehensible? I thought I presented my new evidence clearly and concisely enough (initially I had three additional paragraphs written but I cut that out). Admittedly the AFD discussion does seem rather hard to follow for anyone without knowledge of the subject matter as to make it not exactly clear what I'm trying to refute here.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Question - Is there a .gif on this page that displays a visual pattern that causes appellants to post walls of text that are semantically valid and have no semantic meaning? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    • You may have to re-install your internet, I will mail you the floppy disk containing the software.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse The nominator's rationale for deletion review was more succinctly stated in this edit on the closer's talk page which read in part:
It's clear that these people don't know what they're talking about ...
That's actually not an uncommon sentiment in CFD since there are often subject matter experts in a specific area interacting with generalists who are very familiar with category guidelines. That tension is productive though and leads to better categories for the encyclopedia since either side can carry the day. (Disclosure: I did not participate in this CFD nom but did provide feedback in a follow up nom.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Additional new evidence: The central question of this discussion seems to be "Is Shanghainese an ethnic group?" As such some kind of neutral source on ethnography needs to be consulted. I have obtained an excerpt of David Levinson's Ethnic Groups Worldwide (1998) which was cited as an WP:NPOV and authoritative source in the nomination for an article on another ethnic group (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venetian people) :

While not ethnically homogeneous, China is dominated by the Han Chinese, who account in general for 92% of the population but com prise an even higher percentage of the population in the densely populated eastern provinces and cities. Han number about 1 .05 billion and are the dominant ethnic group in the nation. There is significant variation within the Han and important distinctions are based on region (north or south), residence (urban or rural), and dialects of the Chinese language (Gan, Hakka, Mandarin or Pei. Min Nan or Hokkien, Min Pei, Wu, Xiang or Hunan. Yue or Cantonese). Experts disagree whether the speakers of the Hakka and Hokkien dialects should be classified as Han or as distinct groups. The Han are the culturally, politically, and economically dominant ethnic group in China.

  • This should be enough evidence to at least overturn the assertions of !voters that Shanghainese (synonymous with Wu) is definitely not an ethnic group. Special thanks to WP:RS for help finding the book excerpt.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    • It’s been a few days... are there are comments/criticisms of this source I brought up? Hopefully this isn’t overlooked during closing...Prisencolin (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't want to ping anyone because I'm assuming all relevant parties have already seen this, but can I get comment on this new source?--Prisencolin (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Read it: there significant regional variation between Han communities, and there is not a consensus on whether some should be viewed as distinct groups. Similar claims were already presented in the original CFD nom though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The source still says it is an "important distinction," as such we can subsume that "distinction == WP:DEFINING" for the purposes of categorization.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse the outcome was very clear, and nothing has changed which would make this a valid category. SportingFlyer T·C 01:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Landspeeder (closed)

  • Landspeeder – No consensus there is some art to closing, not headcounting but still recognising that headcount has some reflection of how convincing the community finds the arguments. There is not, that I can see, a consensus on whether this close pulled that off or not. 12:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC) WilyD 12:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landspeeder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
    • I have a problem here with the closer's statement that no consensus was reached. This is not correct. The vote was 12-4 to keep. We need to adopt a new policy in which when a vote, whether to keep or delete, specially by such a margin like this one (12-4 to keep) then the argument closer should not be able to close it as "no-consensus" because a 6-6 is a no consensus, or a 1-1, even a close vote like 12-10 could be called no-consensus, but 75 percent of the vote clearly shows a consensus. Many times also, the closer who writes "no consensus" happens to be the deletion nominator, so that comment can be used to benefit the closer's desired outcome since many arguments that are closed as "no consensus" are put back on VFD months later. Antonio Bunkers Martin (dime?) 04:02, 9 February, 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. WP:AFDNOTAVOTE. The closer stated that they weighted arguments, not just votes. No consensus signifies that the arguments on one side, while less numerous, were in the closers opinion better than the arguments on the other sides. The closer should be commended on reading the arguments, and not just closing based on a simple vote count. Anyway, no consensus is a little different from the keep, so there is really no problem here unless anyone wants to argue for a deletion? Lastly per User_talk:AntonioMartin#Editing_other_people's_closes, editing other people's closed is a no-no. Please don't do this again (instead, a discussion here is the right choice). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I would have closed as keep, but ultimately there is no effective difference between the effect of a keep or a no consensus closure, so no action here. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
It was a marginal case; as those advocating deletion were quite strong and convincing in their arguments, I thought NC would be more acceptable all round; plus as Stifle says, the net effect on the article is the same. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn The OP's reference to VFD shows their seniority. The discussion was also notable in getting another veteran, Lar, to wake up. WP:DGFA advises closers to "Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants." and it doesn't appear that this was done. The entire discussion was absurd as the subject is such an iconic part of the Star Wars universe that deletion was never an option from the outset. The nomination proposed alternatives such as redirection and merger rather than deletion and so should have been speedily closed. All the Delete !votes should have been discounted as failing to understand what the nomination was proposing. The Delete !votes were instead based on WP:FANCRUFT which is not a policy or guideline. The closer's view that this was strong was erroneous and contrary to WP:DGFA which states that "Arguments that contradict policy ... are frequently discounted. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I disagree and think "common sense and respect[ing] the judgement and feelings of Wikipedia participants" was very much done, which a close like "The result was keep" (end discussion) .... doesn't. However, for the record I discounted the following !votes following Sandstein's relist : "Keep Current sources shows WP:GNG", "Delete Fancruft Fails WP:GNG" and "Keep I've read all the arguments above, and I find myself in the speedy keep camp" (implying the nomination was somehow in bad faith). A secondary reason for deciding NC was the excessive discussion between Lar and Piotrus, which drowned out a lot of other arguments. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I'm sympathetic to the people who believe this should be "keep", but judging consensus is up to administrators. If we're going to turn it to a strict numerical !vote, a straw poll, then that concept has to be made policy. I !voted to delete. It was kept. That's the bottom line. What is the fuss? Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The “keep” !votes are all weak. The include empty claims of meeting the GNG, and “keep” !voters listing sources have listed non-independent sources. It couldn’t be closed as “delete” because the sources were not comprehensively demonstrated to be non GNG qualifying, and because WP:BEFORE requires looking at merge and redirect targets, which I’m sure exist. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Many of the keep !votes are weak, though not all (some provide sources that while debatable, aren't weak). The delete !votes however are also mostly pretty weak (no discussion of sources, just a "doesn't meet GNG, CRUFT". Hobit (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
      • That's true. With a little GNG-source-analysis, some "keep" !votes could have been refuted, but merely asserting that sources don't meet the GNG is weak. The nomination was strong, except that the case was not made upfront for a deletion as opposed to a merge and redirect. WP:BEFORE requires this. I recommend those arguing deletion to first try merging to elsewhere, and only come back to AfD when that is blocked. AfD is not good for forcing mergers. On my first look, I was surprised at "NC" versus "Keep", but then came to see and agree with the closer's point. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • weak endorse I'm generally loath to overturn an NC outcome, but this one is close. That said, I think NC isn't a crazy reading. The nom was on-point. The delete !votes were mostly weak, but so were the keep !votes. Eh. Numbers were heavily keep. I think keep was a better close, but NC is probably within discretion. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I do understand this appeal. The appeal is concise; only the AFD is lengthy, and it is the job of the closer to review the AFD, which they did. The closer concluded that the Delete arguments are essentially that it is fancruft, and that the Keep arguments are essentially that it is fancruft, and they don't agree as to what to do with the fancruft. The close of No Consensus seems correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
One lesson of this AfD, if there is any, is that interested persons should avoid getting involved in lengthy argumentation. It tends to cloud over the process and is helpful to no one. Coretheapple (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No action I cannot endorse the close as it strains the edge of plausibility discretion. However, since a no-consensus close does default to keep as Stifle describes, I think a no-action close of this appeal is appropriate. I agree that the keep position could have been stronger as the closer described, but the delete position was also on the weak side as Hobit explains. --Enos733 (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Andrew Davidson. NC is not an immediately harmful close, even if incorrect, but if the AfD is going to be noted in the talk page, this DRV should be linked as well to provide context for the next AfD whether or not the appeal is sustained--as there will inevitably be a next AfD sometime. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to keep. For the 'no consensus' close to stand, the closer would have had to provide a lot more detailed explanation why the 'keep' votes were discounted. Nsk92 (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to keep. Ordinarily disputing the difference between a no consensus outcome and a keep outcome is a fool's errand, but this discussion invokes policy matters of consequence. The keep !voters essentially argue that the coverage of various expressions of the "landspeeder" fictional concept, both inside and beyond the immediate context of the underlying films, should be viewed collectively in assessing notability. The delete !voters argue that the coverage should be partitioned and viewed as discrete subjects. Neither argument is clearly unreasonable, and both are consistent with notability standards. The consensus as expressed in the discussion was to view the coverage collectively. For the closer to reject this consensus and preference a different reading of notability policy was an impermissible supervote; their action is therefore invalid and should be corrected. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: If this discussion concludes as you suggest, the practical effect will be exactly zero. The article will still be kept. As far as I can determine, if it has any effect whatsoever it will be to encourage more discussions of this kind after AfDs that have no practical effect whatsoever. Am I mistaken? Isn't that the bottom line here? That an admin exercised his judgment and reached a determination under the rules. Or perhaps there will be an impact, a negative one, in that admins will be encouraged to treat AfDs as strictly numerical votes, and not to use their discretion in weighing the strength of arguments. That is of course precisely what AntonioMartin, who commenced this discussion, is seeking. Coretheapple (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The difference between Keep and No Consensus is not zero. If the close is No Consensus then this encourages the deletionists to try renominations, mergers or anything else they can think of to make the article go away. A Keep provides some deterrent against further vexatious nominations. Though even a Keep is not a sure thing -- see Jack Schlossberg for a recent example of WP:NOTAGAIN. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
True. But I've seen articles deleted and then they magically reappear, so even a deletion is not a guarantee the issue won't go away. Coretheapple (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
By the way I'm confused by your invoking WP:NOTAGAIN. That is in an essay on arguments to avoid. Coretheapple (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
There are other policy and guideline pages which make the same point, such as WP:NOTGETTINGIT and WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." For another fresh example, see Caroline Killeen. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse Given that 75% of the discussion wasn't actually about the subject itself but about a LEGO model, and a lot of the comments that were about the subject were vague handwaving, No Consensus is probably correct here. I may well have closed it the same way. Black Kite (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd probably be OK with a 'no consensus' close if the closing admin provided a more substantive closing statement explaining their reasoning. The closing statement given in this AfD is pretty strange and rather crypric. Nsk92 (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse- When you take away the vacuous votes and dishonest misrepresentations of the speedy keep policy you don't end up with 12-4 but closer to 3-3 and that's definitely in NC territory. AfD is not a vote count, and arguments that policy should be modified to make it one don't belong at DRV. I'm also concerned with statements like Many times also, the closer who writes "no consensus" happens to be the deletion nominator- that wasn't the case here so even if that statement were generally true (and I've seen no evidence that it is) it wouldn't apply here. Reyk YO! 13:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse Looking through the discussion, the keep !votes are so non-source-based that I would be persuaded to recommend overturning to delete if it wasn't for the fact consensus can override our notability policies when there's enough support to keep and not enough will to adhere to our standards. The keep voters made no GNG-based argument at all. SportingFlyer T·C 14:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 February 2021

Category:Heroines of the Venezuelan War of Independence

Category:Heroines of the Venezuelan War of Independence (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Did not notify WikiProject Venezuela, and if they had someone would have told them "heroine" is an actual title - these women were given the honor "heroine"/heroína - not a neutrality concern, i.e. see at the articles in the category like Ana María Campos. Kingsif (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Another notice appeared right here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Article alerts. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
XfD templates being automatically added to a procedural page is not notifying a WikiProject; at least, not suitably. A courtesy message at the talk page is expected. WP Venezuela even has a deletion discussion page that this was not added to. Kingsif (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
That is not our documented process.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Would you might putting a strikethrough the part of this nomination that said the WikiProject was not notified, since your concern is how they were notified not whether they were notified. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
No. I wasn't so much saying there was a procedural deficiency, but that if anyone in the original discussion had thought to ask someone who might have subject knowledge (i.e. at the WikiProject, and would have endeavored to make sure the message was received) then the mistaken basis for renaming wouldn't have been made. I'm not arguing for or against rename or deletion, nor that the original decision be discarded for not being filed properly, but that all the !votes were made on an incorrect assumption and nobody bothered to seek the truth. If your proposal for rename/deletion is coming from a name issue, you should make sure to find out if there's actually an issue at all first. That's the complaint about not actually trying to communicate with the WikiProject. Kingsif (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse (as participant) for four reasons: 1) There was no procedural deficiency in the nomination; the multiple WikiProject notices were just overlooked. 2) The claim that there was not a neutrality violation because there is a non-defining award called "heroine" just moves the issue from WP:NPOV to WP:OCAWARD. 3) The !votes here were not close. 4) The reason they were not close is because Category:Women in the Venezuelan War of Independence is a clearer name more likely to aid navigaiton. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Are you claiming that this award isn't a defining characteristic of most of the people in the category? It seems likely it would be. And the new name is really an utterly different thing. Hobit (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - It appears that the appellant is saying that "heroine" is a specific honor that is conferred, often posthumously, on women who were freedom fighters in the Venezuelan Revolution, comparable to a knighthood or a medal. You have the honor if the government confers the honor on you. The question for navigation should be whether the reader who is using the category to search is looking for women whom editors think took part in the Revolution, or for women who were given the title of "heroine" for their participation in the Revolution. So it comes down to whether we expect that the reader wants to use the category as a list of people who have received a certain honor. User:Kingsif - Is that a correct statement of what your appeal is about? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. And I guess "Women in the Venezuelan War of Independence" is also vaguely inaccurate since many of them didn't fight, either (I'm actually not sure if any did at all). I.e. the original discussion was opened for the wrong reasons (someone falsely assumed a neutrality issue, people voted based on that), and the new name is wrong for the pages being sorted. There shouldn't be any name discussion besides reinstating what is accurate; if you now also want to discuss whether having a category for these women is valuable, that's a different thing that perhaps needs a different discussion. Either way, I think the Wikipedia view is to rather not have a category than have a poorly-named one. Kingsif (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • From a procedural point of view this discussion may be relisted. The outcome of the discussion will most probably not change however, because the new information will be discarded per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if they were given the title of heroines, it is POV to use it as a category title. Dimadick (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
No it's not. That's like saying it's POV to describe people given the honorary title "The Most Honourable" as "The Most Honourable". Use heroína is you have to, but it's a title not an adjective. Kingsif (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
We do not categorize by honorary title. IFF there were a membership in a notable organization, that might be something else.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Revert: I agree that the project should have been notified directly, a CFR template is not enough for the recent (low) activity of the project. Also I do not agree that it is an inaccurate title. The Venezuelan National Pantheon has a list of "heroinas/heroines", soldiers or not, this title is the actual descriptor. Maybe it can be renamed afterwards to National heroines of the Venezuelan War of Independence or something like that, but the removal was maybe too quick. --ReyHahn (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The vast majority of CFD discussions could be overturned on the basis of not manually notifying WikiProjects instead of relying on the automated templates. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse as non-participant — the usual notifications were posted, no procedural deficiency. There is no main article for an award of "heroine"/heroína. In general we don't categorize by posthumous awards. If many/most of the women listed were not in fact participants, then "in" should be changed to "of", matching parent Category:People of the Venezuelan War of Independence.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    • That may well be, but an overall new discussion is probably best for that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Emdorse it is POV-pushing to use a title like heroine. We do not slavishly follow biased promotional language. Beyond that as designating a specific award this almost certainly violates Over categorization by award. However the general intersection covered by the award is categorizable by, but we should not limit this category explicitly to award recipients.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@Cryptic: Those exceptions have been steadily dwindling in CFD though: Category:Heroes of Labour (GDR), Category:National Heroes of Barbados, Category:Places named for Confederate heroes by state, Category:National Heroes of Turkey, Category:Tatar heroes and Category:Heroes of Kosovo have all turned red. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn or relist on the presumption that the title is a formal award name, and hence if POV, intractably so based on RS'es and something to be explained rather than suppressed. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Procedural close - I really do hate to be bureaucratic, but this was a requested rename, not a requested deletion. The forum for review of rename discussions, including at CfD, is Wikipedia:Move review. I would recommend a procedural close of this discussion without prejudice to its being reopened at that location. See WP:PCLOSE. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The category was deleted, so deletion review seems perfectly appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
No, the category wasn't deleted. It was moved to Category:Women in the Venezuelan War of Independence. See this log entry. As such, move review is the correct forum. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Move review supervises proposed moves. Deletion review is the supervisory body for AfD, MfD, CfD, and FfD. This is the correct venue.—S Marshall T/C 12:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
That used to be accurate, but as a result of this 2018 RfC, move review was given jurisdiction over CfDs and RfDs that were "limited in scope to renaming". This is why the policy at MR states that "CfDs and RfDs can only be reviewed [at move review] if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion Review" (emphasis added). The CfD at issue here was "limited in scope to renaming," so it "can only be reviewed" at move review. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
That rather poorly-attended RfC says you can use move review for these, but it doesn't say that you must. I revise my position to read: this is a correct venue.—S Marshall T/C 18:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I think the clear intent of the RfC was to state that "the deletion review process is not suitable for reviewing move-related discussions." I can't see any contributors expressing the view that move review should become an alternative forum. If anything, that would create an undue degree of bureaucracy, and it would encourage forum-shopping. (It's also just illogical: Why would deletion review review something that wasn't a deletion?) However, since my view pretty clearly isn't going to carry the day, I'll !vote in the alternative to relist for consideration of the newly presented information. Although we do not and should not require notification of WikiProjects, we do allow relisting when new information is presented. That's the situation here, so (if venue is proper, which it isn't) I would relist without expressing an opinion on who is actually right about the category name. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a proper forum. CfD is a place where deletion discussions take place, and deletion was a potential outcome in the discussion, even though it was moved. I'm not sure this is the right forum for move discussions on article pages, and I'd never heard of move review until now, but discussions which occur in venues in which deletion could be an outcome are more than welcome here. Enforcing a move to a lesser-used venue on a technicality hurts the project. SportingFlyer T·C 02:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The folks at move review are generally more informed about the nuances of naming policy than we are here at DRV, so I do feel that there would be a tangible benefit in enforcing this "technicality". (I freely admit that I'm in the minority here, which is why I cast an alternative !vote.) That being said, the very fact that we have two forums doing the same thing (evaluating consensus in XFDs) is in my view a clear sign of over-bureaucratization, and I would thus support a merger of DRV and MR. That, however, is perhaps a discussion that will have to be saved for another time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • We don't ask deletion nominators to inform WikiProjects, and we never have. In this case the WikiProject was informed but not in the WikiProject's preferred manner. I can't find any procedural defect whatsoever in that respect. However, setting aside that concern, it's clear that the CfD participants thought the "Heroine" title was awarded by Wikipedians, and it wasn't. Contrary to what's posted above, we absolutely do categorize by honorary title, such as Chevaliers of the Légion d'honneur; Honorary Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath; and so on. Although deletion review normally corrects procedural defects, it does on rare occasions find that it's necessary to overturn a decision that might have been procedurally correct when the discussion got the facts horribly wrong (example), and I recommend this outcome here. Please would the closer consider specifically saying in the close that it's not needful to inform WikiProjects of deletions.—S Marshall T/C 12:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • relist discussion was flawed. Maybe we shouldn't have the category, but the reason for the move doesn't make sense with the notion this is a specific title/award.didn't sign, sorry, Hobit (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse I would relist the article if there was a main article, but we don't have one, so I endorse the change. Lettlerhello • contribs 03:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I !voted above I for one am finding this discussion to be a bit disappointing. If the original discussion was flawed, we should have another one. There may well be other reasons to delete/rename this category. But those reasons should be debated and they haven't been. Arguments about not having a main article, or not categorizing by honorary title, or whatever don't belong at DRV--they belong at CfD. Hobit (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@Hobit: I think we all agree that flawed CFDs should be relisted and CFDs should not be relisted just to add a minor point in the discussion that won't change the outcome. We just happen to sincerely disagree about which of those options describes this situation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Every single !vote involved the issue of neutrality, which I think we all agree doesn't really apply. I don't see how that's "adding a minor point". If there are other reasons to delete it, that discussion goes at CfD, not here. The folks here aren't experts on categories... Hobit (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Every single !vote supported the nom to keep the category but change the name to better aid navigation. Whether the problematic original category name was due to WP:NPOV or WP:OCAWARD is a minor point. (I appreciate your viewpoint here as an effort to improve the encyclopedia by following the process; people who disagree also think they're improving the encyclopedia by following the process.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm seriously having a problem seeing it that way. Not one person said anything about better navigation. We can agree to disagree here, but I just can't see how you are seeing that. And I don't see a single argument, here or there, that this isn't a defining award for most of these folks. I don't see how we can do something based on OCAWARD without evidence this isn't a defining award. I've no doubt you are trying to improve things, I just feel you are pulling arguments out of the CfD that aren't even vaguely there as far as I can see. Could you explain how you think the discussion at CfD was about better navigation? As I see it, every comment was about POV/neutrality issues, not navigation. What do you think I'm missing? Hobit (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for that; we likely won't agree here, but I appreciate the conversation. The intro to WP:CAT reads "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages". The WP:CFD discussions are part of that effort to improve navigation, again per the intro to WP:OC and a POV pushing category without navigational benefit would have been deleted outright. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
And I continue to not see a single argument in the CfD that says anything about navigational benefits and this lacking said benefits. Could you quote something from the discussion that leads you to believe the discussion concluded something about navigational benefits? Hobit (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse I've probably missed something, but from what I can tell (several Spanish language searches) this doesn't appear to have been a posthumous award at all, but rather they're just referred to as "heroines" by secondary sources. Overturning this on grounds that it was an award doesn't make sense. If I'm mistaken and we do have evidence someone awarded them posthumously, I don't think OCAWARD is met, but it's probably close enough for an additional discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year 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
  1. ^ https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/tungcheehwa
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=1004064729"