Skip to: Active discussions Recent discussions Archive (purge cache)

Shortcut WP:DRV

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.

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

If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.

((subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
)) ~~~~

Commenting in a deletion review

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

• 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, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
• If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

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

Speedy closes

• Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
• 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".

20 June 2024

19 June 2024

Moruf Oseni

Moruf Oseni (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page was deleted under the G11 and A7 criteria. There was no communication before the deletion. The subject is the CEO of a top Bank in Nigeria (Wema Bank) and so qualifies to have a Wiki page. He is notable enough. I would like to be able to edit the article in a draft space to fix the G11 issue before seeking approval to move to mainspace Michael Ugbodu (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see that this has been through a deletion discussion, but it certainly looks like multiple users and admins have been booting an article under this name back to Draftspace for months now. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• List. The sources are mostly routine or lists of executives. I don't think this would hold up to an AFD, but I probably would not have speedily deleted it. I'd support allowing recreation and listing it for a discussion at AFD. Then if it is deleted again, salt the page and be done with it. Malinaccier (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• List on the general principle that speedy deletions should be uncontentious, and this has become contentious. If there are multiple efforts to restore something that was deleted, it is better to have a Delete consensus before create-protecting the title. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18 June 2024

Miskin Abdal

Miskin_Abdal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Hello, I noticed that deletion of this article was closed with no consensus. This is very surprising to me. I have spent three days to investigate it and came to conclusion that it was a hoax. Moreover, the statement in its first paragraph is completely wrong. Please reconsider your decision or provide reason(s) for keeping that article which is full of false statements. HeritageGuardian (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Endorse No consensus is really the only way to close that deletion discussion. Those who advocated for keeping made good arguments that the topic might meet GNG, even though it was sock-created, and most of the unsourced content has already been removed. This is not the second round of discussing whether an article should be deleted, but is rather reviewing whether the closer acted correctly. SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even after the unsourced content was removed, the first paragraph contains false statement. By simple citing a book, which does not cite any other sources, the person in the article cannot be appointed as a head of foreign affairs in early Safavid dynasty. So, the article contains false information. Regarding GNG, the same content was published in multiple mediums to create notability. None of them cited any Safavid literature. Therefore, they cannot be considered as if the article met GNG. HeritageGuardian (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  One more thing. I noticed that en.wikipedia.org already has separate pages for persons who was in charge of foreign affairs in early Safavid dynasty starting with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_Najm_Zargar_Gilani. In there, there is a link to his successor and so on. Therefore, even if the person in the article for deletion was one of them, then there is no need to create duplicate pages for the same person. hth. thx HeritageGuardian (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  I have checked condition for GNG one more time. One of the requirements is "Reliable-- means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. ..." I have already discussed this in the deletion page that this requirement was not met. Therefore GNG was not met for this article at all. I also asked and commented on suggestions of those users who stated that it meets GNG. I am not going to repeat them here. Please be objective and pay attention to arguments put forward. Please avoid simple counting votes. thx. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Hello @HistoryofIran I thought this discussion could be interesting to you since you created pages for persons who were in charge of foreign affairs in early Safavid dynasty. Please add your suggestions comments if any. thx HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Endorse no consensus was the correct close here. The vote was numerically split with three delete (including the nom and removing one of HeritageGuardian's two bolded delete votes). More importantly, the keep side reasonably responded to the delete side's arguments by cleaning up some of the unsourced material, posting sources which I will consider borderline-GNG at worst, and correctly pointing out that, while the article was created by a sock, substantial content was added by users in good standing. The delete side was given the illusion of additional support by HeritageGuardian's bludgeoning of the process and posting 15(!) times in this debate. A third relist would have been a reasonable outcome as well but was not in any way required. Frank Anchor 13:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So you counted votes? I believe that is against the rules. None of the sources are reliable, so the article does not meet GNG. I posted 15 times in the debate, because responded to users who wanted to keep it, asking them for evidence. I do not see anything wrong with that. That article is a hoax and admins try to keep it by counting votes or avoiding the fact that citations are not reliable. I did not think Wikipedia was such a place. HeritageGuardian (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  AFD is not a vote, hence why I clarified the substance of the keep votes was more important than a numerical split. Frank Anchor 15:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not see how keep votes were more important. For example the user @Psychastes voted to keep by pointing to a citation of the article that he found in google books. Presence of a citation in google book does not mean it meets GNG. I found pdf of that book, examined it and pointed out that it did not have any references to any sources related to Safavids. I spent a few hours on it. You considered my attempt as if I was bludgeoning. On the other hand, if we approach from credibility point of view of a vote, then we should not count vote to keep by Psychastes because it was not based on the content of the citation rather on observation that it existed in google books. HeritageGuardian (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. There was no consensus reached among participants, and no additional comments after the second relisting, so this was the correct interpretation of the discussion result. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems to me now, that it is useless from my side to convince any admins, because they evaluate votes giving more weight to opinions of those users who has more edits in whole Wikipedia, rather than paying attention to arguments put forward. I believe it is against the rules, but that is the reality. Basically admins make decisions based on ego rather than on logic. The previous endorser wrote "substantial content was added by users in good standing". By good standing he means number of edits, although that user did not add any content, but deleted most of the content after my contribution to debate, which the same admin considered as if I was bludgeoning. HeritageGuardian (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  By users in good standing, I meant users that are not socks, which successfully refuted argument that claimed the article should be deleted due to being created by a blocked sock. Frank Anchor 17:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems to me that we going on circle here. There were two users who voted to delete including me. The main reason put forward was not that it was created by sock puppets. The main reason from my side was that none of the citations had any references, which means they are not reliable, which means article violates GNG. This was not refuted by any users who voted to keep. Instead, one of them gave the same or additional citations that had the same issue. HeritageGuardian (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Either No Consensus or another Relist were the best readings of a messy discussion. The nominator and appellant seems to make the mistake that I too often see at DRV, and at the AFDs that precede the DRVs, of mistaking length of argument for strength of argument. It is true that the nominator and appellant has had the longer argument, and that they think that is the stronger argument (but it isn't in this case). In this case, the nominator's bludgeoning of the AFD made it unlikely that there would be a consensus either to Keep or to Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• IAR Idea - Although the close is correct, an Ignore All Rules closure could be to Relist one more time, after this DRV has publicized the AFD to a new set of reviewers, but preferably with the appellant topic-banned from arguing with the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17 June 2024

13 June 2024

PAR_Technology (closed)

Otago NORML

Otago NORML (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting a review of my closure following an inquiry on my talk page by Dclemens1971. I closed this as "keep" after determining that there was a consensus that coverage in the Otago Daily Times was sufficient to establish notability. I would appreciate feedback as to whether this was a reasonable decision. If it was not, would it have been better to close the discussion as "no consensus," or to relist it? Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Overturn to no consensus, agnostic about whether to relist (involved). Thanks for flagging this. While there were more "keep" !votes than "delete," it was 5 to 3, so not a strong consensus and had only been relisted once. Four of the five "keep" supporters !voted before the applicable criteria for WP:BRANCH, which requires greater scope of sources beyond local news for a chapter of an organization, were brought into the discussion, and thus it would have been worthwhile to allow more discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC) EDITED TO ADD: After the discussion below I am clarifying my !vote and I am now agnostic about whether the AfD is relisted. A N/C close is more closely aligned with the outcome of the discussion and allows a future nominator to write a better nomination statement. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure WP:BRANCH applies. A branch of what exactly? I'm also not sure we have the GNG met. A school paper can be a good source (though I'd be leery of an article where that was the only reliable source of any depth...). Can someone who wants to keep this chime in with the WP:THREE best sources? [1] seems to not have significant coverage of the group. The school paper article is, of course, solid in terms of depth. Hobit (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears to have been established as a branch of NORML New Zealand, which is itself a branch of NORML. (The Otago organization appears to be inactive but see description on its old Facebook page.) Despite its depth, the school paper doesn't qualify for GNG under WP:RSSM. I don't want to relitigate the AfD though, I just thought it appeared that there was not a consensus formed and that a relist might have brought in additional perspective and a firm consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I get not wanting to relitigate (that really isn't the point of DRV). But what I'm trying to do is gage the strength of arguments made in the AfD. An issue you raised here was WP:BRANCH not having time to be discussed in the AfD. Our article says "It is not affiliated to the national New Zealand cannabis law reform organisation NORML New Zealand". So I'm wondering if the WP:BRANCH argument made above is relevant. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources indicate it was founded as a chapter but at some point lost its affiliation (see its facebook page and archived website: https://web.archive.org/web/20101121002708/http://www.otagonorml.com/?q=node/13). Even if affiliation was removed at some indeterminate point, it still seems reasonable to apply the WP:BRANCH criteria to a group that appeared to operate as a chapter for most of its existence. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The school paper does not contribute to notability of a student organization. See the unanimous consensus recorded here (given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions. JoelleJay (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I don't see keep as a possible result here. It's clear from the keep !votes that coverage is very marginal. One delete !voter brings up WP:BRANCH, the other clearly discusses the coverage, these are the two strongest !votes in the discussion. Finally, the final keep !voter, and only post relist voter, both correctly (in terms of general policy) and incorrectly cites policy, if WP:BRANCH applies - the NORML New Zealand page says it is a branch and this page says it is not a branch and none of the sources, well, work, and in any case that's sort of beyond what a closer should be doing. I probably would have relisted this, but I think I might have endorsed a delete result and no consensus probably makes the most sense if someone has to close this, even though I think the delete !votes are stronger. SportingFlyer T·C 05:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, I spot checked one of the ODT listings, which said it was indeed a branch of NORML NZ. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then those citing BRANCH were correct. SportingFlyer T·C 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist or close as N/C and allow a renom in the short term future. While a keep isn't wrong per se, I don't see that the case being made strongly for GNG. Star Mississippi 16:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse I think merge (even though the !votes were mostly binary keep/delete) would have been the best policy-based outcome in light of that discussion, with no consensus also a strong contender. Keep would have been my third choice, but I see no reason to NOT relist an additional time. Some of our experienced closers will relist with a statement asking the participants to choose between two non-deletion arguments--merge or keep, in this case--and that might have been the best thing to do. Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  “Merge” would have been a WP:Supervote. I would !vote to overturn it. A “no consensus” close with instructions to discuss a merge on the talk page. Interestingly, this was done fourteen years ago at Talk:Otago NORML#Merge proposal, but a call of an AfD consensus to merge requires much more than a few mentions of it and a single I replied comment fourteen years ago. One participant mentioned “Redirect” as a !vote. “Redirect” could be a better basis of a WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Admins are to ferret out the rough consensus based on a discussion. That's not limited to counting noses, or even the options listed. Picking an outcome other than the obvious one getting the most !votes could be a supervote... but it can also be a correct reading of a policy-based consensus. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That discussion does not show a rough consensus to merge. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your opinion differs from mine. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Admins have the privilege of calling a rough consensus. If that prerogative were being used, I would expect a much better closing explanation, including use of the words “rough consensus”. Maybe a rough consensus call with a good closing statement would have been good, but then, who is going to merge what? The closer? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure speculating beyond this point is useful, but yes, a merge to NORML New Zealand, with an appropriate closing statement, to be done by whomever (I don't normally see closers doing merges themselves, but I'm sure it happens) would be a close I consider appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (noninvolved), seeing no reason to overturn or even relist, the close took into account the comments and reasoning. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus and do not relist. There is clearly no consensus to delete and there is no indication that consensus was “trending” in that direction. There was no additional support for delete after the AFD was relisted, only a single, well-reasoned keep vote which refuted some of the claims made by the delete/merge voters. I do think a better case was made for delete/merge, which is why NC is a better close than keep. However, clearly there is not consensus to not keep the page. Frank Anchor 14:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Assertions of meeting GNG were rebutted and/or plainly incorrect (e.g. The sustained ODT coverage brings this over the general notability line and For example, the Critic here, establish GNG are obviously problematic since all ODT articles are considered only one source, which is not sufficient for the relevant guideline, and The Critic, in addition to also only being one source, fails independence per the cited consensus at RSP). These !votes should have been heavily down-weighted. The argument The rationale for deletion being presented is that, while this is a subject of multiple pieces of significant, independent, published coverage of presumed reliability assumes either that the ODT sources are sufficient (they are not, as they don't count as "multiple") or that the One News source counts toward GNG (no: as noted in the discussion, there is no coverage of NORML, only a namedrop and mentions of Gray), and anyway fails to actually rebut the NORG requirement for non-local SIRS. The random drive-by comment on AUD was worthless as it falsely asserts coverage in national sources and argues the "regional" definition in AUD includes basically any newspaper extending past city limits, despite the requirement in BRANCH actually being "coverage beyond the local area" rather than "coverage in a newspaper designated 'regional'". JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Overturn (to “no consensus”) (uninvolved) SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  Advise User:Dclemens1971 to read advice at WP:RENOM. The AfD nomination statement was weak, it did not make a case for deletion, and this routinely makes for a trainwreck of an AfD. WP:BRANCH, mentioned a few times at the AfD and here, is not a reason for deletion but for a merge and redirect, and as this was not couched in the nomination, a relist is not appropriate.
  While investigating, I noted that User:Jake Wartenberg has little experience at AfD, according to AfDstats. They should get some more experience at AfD before closing contested AfDs, but this does not amount to a reason to not endorse.
  Arguably, the discussion could have been closed as “no consensus”, but “delete” could not have been justified. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A renomination should not be allowed for at least two months, taking the result as “no consensus”, or sox months per WP:RENOM, to allow sufficient reflection on why this AfD failed.

  Two or six months is not very long for a sixteen year old article with a very quiet talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi there. @SmokeyJoe. I am familiar with RENOM; I was not the nominator and have no plans to renominate it. I raised my concern directly to the closer because the decision did not seem to align with the discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why does it matter that the nomination statement was weak when !voters provided strong rationales? BRANCH also doesn't mandate merging/redirecting--it explicitly says this is an option in some cases, not all. In some cases, a specific local chapter or sub-organization that is not considered notable enough for its own article may be significant enough to mention within the context of an article about the parent organization. [...] Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization. [...] Information on sub-chapters of notable organizations might be included in either prose or a brief list in the main article on the organization. The "should" in "should normally be merged" is in reference to those subchapters that do qualify as "some cases", it doesn't mean merging is appropriate in every case--otherwise the preceding and succeeding bullets wouldn't make sense. JoelleJay (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  “the nomination statement was weak” is intended as advice to the nominator for next time, and to other nominators. It doesn’t matter per se, it just tends to produce train wrecks. User:Carrite, for example, even arriving late in the discussion, gives a hard rebuttal to the weak nomination. Weak nominations make for a non-flowing poorly structure discussion for the next arriving participant, and according they tend to attract random drive-by comments that further derail the discussion from finding consensus.

  Re BRANCH. Did I say “mandate”? I would say that it is a reason to merge, unless there are better reasons to not merge, and when that happens, those reasons are the reason to delete or redirect, and mentioning BRANCH was probably unhelpful. These things weren’t thrashed out in the AfD, were they?

  Dclemens pushed the BRANCH argument, but nowhere do I see it being used alongside a reason to not merge.

  Maybe it should have been a no consensus close, yes maybe it should, but it couldn’t have been a “delete”. The case for deletion was not made. This being a review forum, it is appropriate to look for reasons for the discussion failing to find consensus. As I’ve seen in made cases brought to DRV, the root cause of the failure of the discussion was the weak nomination. My opinion on what the outcome should be is not appropriate to voice at DRV, just a review of the AfD and its close. The best way forward is a RENOM. A relist means the trainwreck stays at the top. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse pretty much per SmokeyJoe. I'd have probably closed as NC or relist, but keep was within discretion and I don't believe delete was. Redirect or merge might be the best outcome here but A) it wasn't really discussed much and B) it's not clear what the target would be. Hobit (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I would have closed as no consensus or relisted (and perhaps providing some of the reasoning in the close would have helped as well). That said, I think this is a reasonable interpretation of the strengths of the arguments. Malinaccier (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6 June 2024

Category:Dominican Republic people of European American descent

Category:Dominican Republic people of European American descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

That category was being used for Dominicans descended from United States citizens of European descent, aka White Americans (minus Middle Easterners), it wasn't used for "White Dominicans" as claimed by the deletion nominator. Even, there is still a separate category for Dominicans descended from African Americans, aka Black Americans (Category:Dominican Republic people of African American descent) as anyone can see it in the parent category Dominican Republic people of American descent since that parent category was subcategorized into different recognized American ethnic groups. This category was deleted based on a misunderstanding, maybe it just needed some clarification in the cat page. ★ Iñaki ★ (Talk page) ★ 02:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (as participant to the discussion) It does not look like a misunderstanding. I noted in the discussion that articles are already in e.g. Category:Dominican Republic people of French descent when it is about someone with French (i.e. European) ancestors. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle what do you think about overturning this CfD and you nominating with the correct rationale, as only you made a relevant comment supporting deletion. Others simply did not get the facts right, so the DRV nominator is right that there was, predominantly, a misunderstanding. —Alalch E. 09:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you discounting my comment so readily? SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I legitimately can not see how you made a relevant comment supporting deletion in the absence of an intelligible rationale coming from you and in the context of the erroneous nomination.—Alalch E. 12:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There was nothing erroneous about the nomination as far as I can tell, and any good closer in the category space would understand I'm supporting the arguments which have been made before me. SportingFlyer T·C 17:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Arguments were made about how the nomination was erroneous in this deletion review already prior to this thread, which arguments were then followed up by more arguments how it was erroneous (at this time: the DRV nominator's statement, my 09:55, 6 June comment, Extraordinary Writ's 19:27, 7 June comment). Marcocapelle clarified his !vote here distinguishing it from the erroneous nomination so that his comment can be understood not to rest on the nominator's objectively incorrect assertions, but you haven't distinguished your comment from the erroneous nomination, and as you, in your !vote, made a reference to White Dominicans, which is a reference to the nominator's incorrect assertions, and there's no other intelligible rationale contained in your comment, your comment can not be seen separately from the erroneous rationale. So, as I said, you did not get the facts right. It doesn't mean that this was a good category, but it means that it wasn't a good CfD. —Alalch E. 12:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The nomination was clearly and objectively erroneous and the comments followed this erroneous reasoning, with the exception of Marcocapelle's comment, but that is only one !vote.
  "European American descent" part in the category name clearly refers to European Americans, citizens of the United States of European descent, to this is a category for articles about Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S. for whom their American ancestors are of European descent, i.e. European Americans. So when the nominator said it seems that this is not intended for Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S. this was absolutely incorrect.
  In spite of this, Marcocapelle reasons that we should not have such a category and that the two layers of descent should be compressed into one, so if someone is Dominican with French American descent, the category should be Category:Dominican Republic people of French descent. This is a fine opinion to have, but consensus did not form around this view, as all of the remaining participation revolved around the erroneous rationale. So there was no consensus to delete. My suggestion would be to renominate with a valid rationale.—Alalch E. 09:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• These were the articles in the category at the time of deletion. I think Alalch is right that Looking at the content of this category, it seems that this is not intended for Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S. simply wasn't correct: the people in question did have white ancestors in the U.S., which is why they were added to the category. The real question is whether 1) residents of the Dominican Republic 2) whose ancestors are of European descent and 3) whose ancestors resided in the U.S. is one intersection too far, as Marcocapelle suggested. I suspect the answer is yes, but the CfD didn't really get into that, and since we have a good-faith request I'd probably just relist for further discussion. (Whatever arguments apply to this category probably also apply to the African-American category mentioned above.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]