List of League of Legends champions – Withdrawn. —Cryptic 20:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of League of Legends champions (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Meets WP:LISTN, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." and is possibly acceptable based on WP:LISTGLOSSARY Prisencolin (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as a reasonable reading of consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment from nom - WP:DRV#DELREVD says you should first talk to the nominator. You have failed to contact Sandstein. The purpose of WP:DRVPURPOSE is not to re-argue the deletion nomination but to discuss whether the closure of the discussion was appropriate. You do not present any argument that Sandstein's closure was not an appropriate reflection of the consensus that emerged from the AfD. In fact, your opening statement reads like a perfect example of point 5 of what "Deletion Review should not be used" for: to repeat arguments from the AfD. In fact, unless Prisencolin is able to present an argument that is examinable within the context of a DRV (as per WP:DRVPURPOSE), I suggest to speedily close this DRV. Otherwise, then it should be evident to everyone that I strongly endorse Sandstein's closure as a perfect reflection of the overwhelming (in fact, unanimous except for Prisencolin) consensus for deletion (and potentially merging a paragraph into the parent article). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, the decision was very clearly aligned with the consensus at the discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Deletion discussion clearly had a "delete" outcome - no other reading of consensus is possible. Thparkth (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Consensus is clearly on the side of delete in this case. Mamyles (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Withdraw, I guess this isn't the right place for this--Prisencolin (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse (edit conflict) No other way to close the deletion discussion. Speedy close as the OP does not advance a argument that the consensus was interpreted incorrectly. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of League of Legends champions – Withdrawn. —Cryptic 20:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Meets WP:LISTN, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." and is possibly acceptable based on WP:LISTGLOSSARY Prisencolin (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as a reasonable reading of consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom - WP:DRV#DELREVD says you should first talk to the nominator. You have failed to contact Sandstein. The purpose of WP:DRVPURPOSE is not to re-argue the deletion nomination but to discuss whether the closure of the discussion was appropriate. You do not present any argument that Sandstein's closure was not an appropriate reflection of the consensus that emerged from the AfD. In fact, your opening statement reads like a perfect example of point 5 of what "Deletion Review should not be used" for: to repeat arguments from the AfD. In fact, unless Prisencolin is able to present an argument that is examinable within the context of a DRV (as per WP:DRVPURPOSE), I suggest to speedily close this DRV. Otherwise, then it should be evident to everyone that I strongly endorse Sandstein's closure as a perfect reflection of the overwhelming (in fact, unanimous except for Prisencolin) consensus for deletion (and potentially merging a paragraph into the parent article). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the decision was very clearly aligned with the consensus at the discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion discussion clearly had a "delete" outcome - no other reading of consensus is possible. Thparkth (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Consensus is clearly on the side of delete in this case. Mamyles (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, I guess this isn't the right place for this--Prisencolin (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (edit conflict) No other way to close the deletion discussion. Speedy close as the OP does not advance a argument that the consensus was interpreted incorrectly. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jayanthi Pushpa Kumari – Relisted. Opinions are divided about whether there was a sufficient basis for the non-admin "keep" closure. The logical thing to do is therefore to relist the discussion. – Sandstein 12:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jayanthi Pushpa Kumari (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Closure of WP:AfD/Jayanthi Pushpa Kumari undertaken by non-admin, sst✈, who I believe did not take into account WP:policies in particular WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:INVALIDBIO when closing the AfD, instead relying on comments such as "I believe I have seen others such as DGG note that some articles can be considered notable." and "I've said that articles like this one on spouses of heads of state, have often been considered notable here; I think they almost always have, & it's good to be consistent. (Articles on of spouses of heads of government have usually not been kept on hat reason alone, although I think they ought to be, ) In general I think enough information could be found in local sources". I did request that SSTflyer reconsider their determination however they considered that they acted correctly. I would like an Admin to re-open the AfD to allow a proper debate on the matter to occur. Dan arndt (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment further to my above remarks I believe that the AfD was closed prematurely without allowing sufficient time to respond to comments provided by other editors. Dan arndt (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Probably it would have been better if an admin makes this close, and probably some more discussion would help. But. Dan arndt, we make the rules ourselves, they are not handed down to us, and we can make whatever general or specific exceptions have consensus. I could make a argument for including or for not including spouses of heads of state, but since we generally do include them,it is advisable to be consistent, so people can know what they can expect to find, or expect to write about. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] DGG I don't disagree but the article should provided suitable references to establish the subject's notability (i.e. public works they have conducted or foundations they have established), it should not just be solely reliant on the fact that they are the spouse of notable person. The article should meet the basic requirements of WP:GNG. The only two references provided merely establish that she is the wife of the President - nothing more. Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Couldn't have been closed any other way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Dan arndt, see advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. Also consider that a merge and redirect, which does not require AfD, may be more appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the advice Smokey Joe> As I have been pinged before for re-nominating an AfD, without waiting for a full six month period to pass, I was simply hoping for this AfD to be re-opened so a more detailed and open debate could be had on the matter. I believe that the non-admin closure was premature, as some of the above discussion indicates. Dan arndt (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Oppose a "no consensus" overturn. After a week, the nomination was universally opposed. One gave an excellent rationale. The other gave a reasonable rationale. The nominator failed to engage the opposing views in discussion. This means that the nominator acquiesced per WP:Silence. Also note that the nominator ignored WP:BEFORE. The outcome was clear. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment Smokey Joe If you check the history of the AfD you will see that both editors that opposed the nominations made their submissions at 20:02 and 23:37 on the 7 February 2016 and then the AfD was closed at 04:17 on 8 February which only allowed 8 hours and fifteen minutes to comment. As I live on a different time zone I only became aware of their comments at the same time I became aware of the AfD being closed, which did not mean that I acquiesced only that I wasn't given enough time to comment. I am not requesting that the article be deleted only that a full debate on the issue can occur. In respect to WP:BEFORE if you check the history of the article you will see that I place a notability tag and a PROD notice on 28 February 2016 citing that the article did not supply any references establishing the subject's notability, which was removed by another editor without any change/improvement to the article - which is why I instigated the AfD. I believed I followed proper process but am happy to be corrected. Dan arndt (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] On the timing of the !votes and the close, very good point, I had not noted that. Given the very lateness of the !votes, I do support a relist so that you can respond. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, no other closure possible. Relisting is discouraged when there has been participation beyond the nominator and one more. There is no six-month waiting period before renominating, though it would be normal to wait for circumstances to have changed. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Yes, it is a pity the discussion didn't go any further. Here we had two editors - one who I generally agree with and the other who I rarely agree with at AFD - who are both very familiar with our notability guidelines. It looks as if they implicitly decided that in this case our WP:GNG criteria did not lead to the best result for the encyclopedia. This is not to ignore the notability guidelines but is to follow them by allowing for occasional exceptions. (BTW a merge would be the best result but they are best done editorially and not by AFD fiat). Thincat (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to NC though yes, that's the same thing in practice. First of all, there wasn't much there (no offence to the folks I know in that discussion). The general case doesn't really matter, the question is, "does she meet our inclusion guidelines?" I can't imagine she doesn't, but that discussion doesn't really tell us either way. And I can't find anything at all that provides any meaningful independent coverage (not just "they are only covering her because she's his wife" but anything just about _her_ as a person at all). But there are language problems. I'd have closed this as NC and I think that's the best way to close something like this. One valid delete !vote, and 2 keeps that don't really give a policy-based reason for keeping. I'd prefer we _have_ this article, but our current polices and guidelines don't get us there and the 2 IAR-type !votes to keep aren't enough to push this to keep IMO. It's not clear it isn't within discretion, but I'd still say NC is enough of a better close... Hobit (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] I'm not 100% comfortable that a consensus of two editors is authorising the creation of a biographical article which cites two sources: 1, a political biography of someone else which mentions her in passing, and 2, a red top newspaper article which mentions her in passing. All we've got that's checkable is her name, the fact that she's married to the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, and a reasonable inference that she's probably female. In my view that's not really sufficient verifiable information for a separate article. Procedurally, the close was correct, but I think that in this instance it would be in the best interests of the encyclopaedia for us to refer it back to AfD for a rather less cursory examination of the sources.—S Marshall T/C 21:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to NC or perhaps Relist. The arguments offered in favour of keeping the article were an assertion that the subject belongs to a class of people who are often considered notable and a claim that there might be better sources available out there. Neither of these arguments has any basis in notability guidelines and they contradict WP:NRV, so the closer shouldn't be assigning much weight to them. The nominator did at least base their position on WP:N. Given that there were only three participants and not much of a consensus from that discussion relisting would have been a reasonable option. Hut 8.5 22:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Per S Marshall - reliable sources handle this woman as a one-line mention in articles about her husband, so we should too, and there's nothing in Jayanthi Pushpa Kumari that isn't already in Maithripala Sirisena. The situation calls for a redirect. Whether the afd should be formally overturned, or a new one started, or it should just be redirected editorially is a matter of how much process for the sake of process we're willing to put up with on any given day. —Cryptic 22:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I note that longstanding language in WP:NOTINHERITED addressing this exact point, which apparently enjoyed consensus support and had been cited in AFDs previously, was recently removed without pertinent discussion. I am restoring it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to NC on the basis of the low participation, although I would have !voted "keep". AfD determines notability; guidelines merely guide. Thparkth (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I !voted endorse above but but some of the issues raised here now make me think it would be OK to test to see whether a redirect would have consensus. I doubt anyone really thinks "Jayanthi Pushpa Kumari" should be a red link so deletion and AFD2 aren't the way forward. Thincat (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] I agree. Clearly this should not be a redlink. And I strongly suspect we'll end up with an article here sooner rather than later. But at the moment I can't find any RS with anything beyond the very very basics (her name, who she is married to). Hobit (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - DRV is not a second bite at the AfD apple. I see no procedural error or misreading of consensus. If someone wants to start a merge discussion, the article talk page is thataway. Otherwise, wait three to six months, and re-nominate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, but reopen the existing AfD and relist for another week. The close was reasonable given the existing debate (hence the endorse, but). On the other hand, this got zero participation until very soon before it was closed (I'm guessing from people who watch wp:oldafd). So, while we obeyed all the rules, we really didn't achieve the fundamental goal of hashing out community consensus after a debate. I don't see any reason to wait X months to renominate. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Jayanthi Pushpa Kumari – Relisted. Opinions are divided about whether there was a sufficient basis for the non-admin "keep" closure. The logical thing to do is therefore to relist the discussion. – Sandstein 12:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closure of WP:AfD/Jayanthi Pushpa Kumari undertaken by non-admin, sst✈, who I believe did not take into account WP:policies in particular WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:INVALIDBIO when closing the AfD, instead relying on comments such as "I believe I have seen others such as DGG note that some articles can be considered notable." and "I've said that articles like this one on spouses of heads of state, have often been considered notable here; I think they almost always have, & it's good to be consistent. (Articles on of spouses of heads of government have usually not been kept on hat reason alone, although I think they ought to be, ) In general I think enough information could be found in local sources". I did request that SSTflyer reconsider their determination however they considered that they acted correctly. I would like an Admin to re-open the AfD to allow a proper debate on the matter to occur. Dan arndt (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment further to my above remarks I believe that the AfD was closed prematurely without allowing sufficient time to respond to comments provided by other editors. Dan arndt (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it would have been better if an admin makes this close, and probably some more discussion would help. But. Dan arndt, we make the rules ourselves, they are not handed down to us, and we can make whatever general or specific exceptions have consensus. I could make a argument for including or for not including spouses of heads of state, but since we generally do include them,it is advisable to be consistent, so people can know what they can expect to find, or expect to write about. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I don't disagree but the article should provided suitable references to establish the subject's notability (i.e. public works they have conducted or foundations they have established), it should not just be solely reliant on the fact that they are the spouse of notable person. The article should meet the basic requirements of WP:GNG. The only two references provided merely establish that she is the wife of the President - nothing more. Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Couldn't have been closed any other way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan arndt, see advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. Also consider that a merge and redirect, which does not require AfD, may be more appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice Smokey Joe> As I have been pinged before for re-nominating an AfD, without waiting for a full six month period to pass, I was simply hoping for this AfD to be re-opened so a more detailed and open debate could be had on the matter. I believe that the non-admin closure was premature, as some of the above discussion indicates. Dan arndt (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a "no consensus" overturn. After a week, the nomination was universally opposed. One gave an excellent rationale. The other gave a reasonable rationale. The nominator failed to engage the opposing views in discussion. This means that the nominator acquiesced per WP:Silence. Also note that the nominator ignored WP:BEFORE. The outcome was clear. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Smokey Joe If you check the history of the AfD you will see that both editors that opposed the nominations made their submissions at 20:02 and 23:37 on the 7 February 2016 and then the AfD was closed at 04:17 on 8 February which only allowed 8 hours and fifteen minutes to comment. As I live on a different time zone I only became aware of their comments at the same time I became aware of the AfD being closed, which did not mean that I acquiesced only that I wasn't given enough time to comment. I am not requesting that the article be deleted only that a full debate on the issue can occur. In respect to WP:BEFORE if you check the history of the article you will see that I place a notability tag and a PROD notice on 28 February 2016 citing that the article did not supply any references establishing the subject's notability, which was removed by another editor without any change/improvement to the article - which is why I instigated the AfD. I believed I followed proper process but am happy to be corrected. Dan arndt (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the timing of the !votes and the close, very good point, I had not noted that. Given the very lateness of the !votes, I do support a relist so that you can respond. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, no other closure possible. Relisting is discouraged when there has been participation beyond the nominator and one more. There is no six-month waiting period before renominating, though it would be normal to wait for circumstances to have changed. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Yes, it is a pity the discussion didn't go any further. Here we had two editors - one who I generally agree with and the other who I rarely agree with at AFD - who are both very familiar with our notability guidelines. It looks as if they implicitly decided that in this case our WP:GNG criteria did not lead to the best result for the encyclopedia. This is not to ignore the notability guidelines but is to follow them by allowing for occasional exceptions. (BTW a merge would be the best result but they are best done editorially and not by AFD fiat). Thincat (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC though yes, that's the same thing in practice. First of all, there wasn't much there (no offence to the folks I know in that discussion). The general case doesn't really matter, the question is, "does she meet our inclusion guidelines?" I can't imagine she doesn't, but that discussion doesn't really tell us either way. And I can't find anything at all that provides any meaningful independent coverage (not just "they are only covering her because she's his wife" but anything just about _her_ as a person at all). But there are language problems. I'd have closed this as NC and I think that's the best way to close something like this. One valid delete !vote, and 2 keeps that don't really give a policy-based reason for keeping. I'd prefer we _have_ this article, but our current polices and guidelines don't get us there and the 2 IAR-type !votes to keep aren't enough to push this to keep IMO. It's not clear it isn't within discretion, but I'd still say NC is enough of a better close... Hobit (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% comfortable that a consensus of two editors is authorising the creation of a biographical article which cites two sources: 1, a political biography of someone else which mentions her in passing, and 2, a red top newspaper article which mentions her in passing. All we've got that's checkable is her name, the fact that she's married to the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, and a reasonable inference that she's probably female. In my view that's not really sufficient verifiable information for a separate article. Procedurally, the close was correct, but I think that in this instance it would be in the best interests of the encyclopaedia for us to refer it back to AfD for a rather less cursory examination of the sources.—S Marshall T/C 21:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC or perhaps Relist. The arguments offered in favour of keeping the article were an assertion that the subject belongs to a class of people who are often considered notable and a claim that there might be better sources available out there. Neither of these arguments has any basis in notability guidelines and they contradict WP:NRV, so the closer shouldn't be assigning much weight to them. The nominator did at least base their position on WP:N. Given that there were only three participants and not much of a consensus from that discussion relisting would have been a reasonable option. Hut 8.5 22:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per S Marshall - reliable sources handle this woman as a one-line mention in articles about her husband, so we should too, and there's nothing in Jayanthi Pushpa Kumari that isn't already in Maithripala Sirisena. The situation calls for a redirect. Whether the afd should be formally overturned, or a new one started, or it should just be redirected editorially is a matter of how much process for the sake of process we're willing to put up with on any given day. —Cryptic 22:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I note that longstanding language in WP:NOTINHERITED addressing this exact point, which apparently enjoyed consensus support and had been cited in AFDs previously, was recently removed without pertinent discussion. I am restoring it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC on the basis of the low participation, although I would have !voted "keep". AfD determines notability; guidelines merely guide. Thparkth (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I !voted endorse above but but some of the issues raised here now make me think it would be OK to test to see whether a redirect would have consensus. I doubt anyone really thinks "Jayanthi Pushpa Kumari" should be a red link so deletion and AFD2 aren't the way forward. Thincat (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Clearly this should not be a redlink. And I strongly suspect we'll end up with an article here sooner rather than later. But at the moment I can't find any RS with anything beyond the very very basics (her name, who she is married to). Hobit (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - DRV is not a second bite at the AfD apple. I see no procedural error or misreading of consensus. If someone wants to start a merge discussion, the article talk page is thataway. Otherwise, wait three to six months, and re-nominate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but reopen the existing AfD and relist for another week. The close was reasonable given the existing debate (hence the endorse, but). On the other hand, this got zero participation until very soon before it was closed (I'm guessing from people who watch wp:oldafd). So, while we obeyed all the rules, we really didn't achieve the fundamental goal of hashing out community consensus after a debate. I don't see any reason to wait X months to renominate. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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