WP:DELREVD

Instructions[edit]

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

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.


1.	Click here 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= )) ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: `((subst:DRV notice\|PAGE_NAME)) ~~~~`
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach `<noinclude>((Delrev\|date=2024 February 11))</noinclude>` to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	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=2024 February 11))</noinclude>` If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use `<noinclude>((Delrevxfd\|date=2024 February 11\|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG))</noinclude>`

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".

Recent discussions[edit]

3 February 2024

List of rampage killers (familicides in the United States)

Unsatisfactory rationale by the closer. Since last relisting, this had received 2 Keep votes and 0 Delete votes, and should be relisted again or closed as no consensus. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overturn to "No Consensus" or relist. I don't see any consensus in that discussion, and as 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 notes above it is odd to close as a "Delete" after a relist period with no comments supporting deletion. In particular I find the comments in the AfD by 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 and Timothy reasonable and a sufficient rebuttal to the delete comments to prevent the finding of a consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. The same admin who relisted it chose to close it as delete after two new keep comments. Not seeing a consensus to delete this long-standing list. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that in prior DRV's, including recently, it has been held that a prior relist, with subsequently no or little/adverse participation following the relist, does not bind another administrator from subsequently finding consensus and closing a discussion as such. That being said, that principle has (to my knowledge) not been tested where it is the same administrator who relisted then subsequently found consensus after no or little/adverse participation following that relist. Daniel (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: much seems to be made of my 26-January relist. To be clear: consensus to delete already existed at the time, but wasn't clear to me. It was a mistake to relist this AfD, but a harmless one. When I went over the views more carefully earlier today, it became clear that most of the Keep (and the "Oppose") !votes had to do with the notability of the term Familicide, and the difference between it and other types of murders, neither of which are relevant to the notability of this list of familicides in the US. We already have a Familicide page. Once you give those arguments the weight they deserve, you're left with relevant arguments based on P&G, the vast majority of which are for deletion.

TimothyBlue's Keep view, added after that ill-conceived relist, certainly made my decision harder, but it wasn't enough to swing the balance. The appellant's !vote was about the notability of the familicide concept, not about the notability of this particular list, and therefore didn't add much.

Unanimous !votes after a relist will tip the scales towards those !votes if the scales were balanced beforehand. That was not the case here. Owen× ☎ 04:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overturn to NC there clearly was enough gray area to not delete prior to the last relist, even if the closer claims after the fact (and ONLY after their close was challenged), that the relist was made in error. There was unanimous support to keep afterward including a very well-reasoned vote by TimothyBlue. And neither of these keep votes were refuted. There is no realistic way this could have closed as delete. Frank Anchor 14:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse I think delete was a perfectly reasonable reading of that discussion and would have closed it that way myself, albeit maybe with a bit more explanation. SportingFlyer T·C 21:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overturn to NC The admin's mistake, such as it was, wasn't harmless in that it caused two editors to spend time participating in good faith. Consistency and logical outcomes are part of the community's faith in the process. If two more 'delete' !votes had been cast, it would have been just as wrong for the most recently relisting admin to close this discussion as Keep. So yes, per Daniel's comment above, I believe an admin's relisting does create a presumption of neutrality such that a contrarian close should be remediated here. Don't want to risk that as a closer? Don't relist without assessing that there's not a current consensus, and if you do end up doing so, let someone else close it if you disagree with the outcome unanimously supported by post-relist comments. Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You make a valid point about harm. My apologies to Ficaia and to TimothyBlue for wasting their time participating in a debate that I could have--and should have--already closed. But I don't see how from that you've arrived at the remedy of overturning to NC. Wouldn't such an outcome effectively waste the time of all the participants on that AfD? All of them participated in good faith, and--I believe--arrived at a consensus prior to Ficaia and TimothyBlue joining the discussion. I fail to see how an overturn corrects my own mistaken relisting. If I erred in my process, DRV should step in to correct the process and arrive at the consensus result, rather than toss out several valid Delete !votes to restore the appearance of consistency. I'd willingly take my WP:TROUTing for the pointless relist, but I don't see why JMWt, Buidhe, JPxG and Bearian should have their valid opinions tossed out due to my process mistake. Owen× ☎ 00:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse, although I was involved and !voted to delete so my opinion here is likely worth bupkis. jp×g 🗯️ 00:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse close. I was one of the keep votes, but I think the close reflected consensus. As far as my !vote, I think @OwenX: saw that it was a rather weak rationale (I think it was valid, but I can see the weakness in my points). While I disagree with the outcome, I think the close was valid. I do not feel that my time was wasted because I think Owen× assessed my !vote along with all the others, nothing else is needed.

I probably would have closed as delete on 25 January 2024, I can see the disconnect between the close, the relist on 25 January 2024, and the results from the relist, but I think this is a very minor issue and again I think the OwenX assessed all the !votes.

The other keep vote included no valid rationale; the existence of a notable topic does not mean associated lists are notable. My rationale was weak, this no valid rationale at all, I would have assessed this as an ILIKEIT vote, without sources or guidelines. I don't see how these two votes could outweigh the others. // Timothy :: talk 00:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overturn to No Consensus - I disagree with the idea that a consensus to delete existed before the relist, at least not if Oppose is interpreted as Keep. I interpret Oppose as meaning opposing deletion or Keep. A consensus did not exist to delete before the relist, and the additional !votes to Keep certainly did not create that consensus. I don't like to overturn a close at DRV, but I don't see how to sustain the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - as the nom I appreciate my views are not worth much here - however I do not understand some of the rationale given above. We are assessing the notability of the list, and I have given several policy reasons why a) it is not notable and b) it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in other ways. These haven't been refuted, indeed the main editor working on the list explained in depth how it is original research. No amount of relisting changes the fundamentals that almost everyone agrees with - it's OR and doesn't follow the published literature in terms of defining the reasons for inclusion. Indeed it sets up its own ideosyncratic inclusion criteria as a subpage of a talkpage. The only other possible reason for a !keep vote is essentially WP:IAR and if we are going to start using that as a reason for NC then we might as well stop having AfD. JMWt (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- No, what we're actually discussing here is more about process and fairness than the specific content of the discussion: Did the admin conduct create a 'party foul'--for lack of a better term--and, if so, does that make the closure, as closed, sufficiently off-base that the result should be invalidated? The actual nomination makes almost no difference here, because at this point it's about the reasonableness of the outcome on the basis of the admin actions, not even the discussion of the nomination. That may sound weird in light of IAR, but if it's a fatal process boo-boo, we're not going to prohibit a new listing where these sorts of considerations can and should be addressed. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Well then I don't understand this discussion. User:Frank_Anchor says:
  
  Overturn to NC there clearly was enough gray area to not delete prior to the last relist, even if the closer claims after the fact (and ONLY after their close was challenged), that the relist was made in error. There was unanimous support to keep afterward including a very well-reasoned vote by TimothyBlue. And neither of these keep votes were refuted.
  
  Which makes it sound like there is no consensus because there were two !keeps after a relist and that they were not refuted. I didn't refute them because there didn't seem any point, they shed no further light on the central policy issues of whether the list was notable or met the inclusion standards. One of them failed to address the question of whether the page could ever be written without significant WP:OR. The other appears to have been disowned by the author in this DRV discussion.
  
  And in your comment above, you said Overturn to NC The admin's mistake, such as it was, wasn't harmless in that it caused two editors to spend time participating in good faith. Consistency and logical outcomes are part of the community's faith in the process. If two more 'delete' !votes had been cast, it would have been just as wrong for the most recently relisting admin to close this discussion as Keep. So yes, per Daniel's comment above, I believe an admin's relisting does create a presumption of neutrality such that a contrarian close should be remediated here. Don't want to risk that as a closer? Don't relist without assessing that there's not a current consensus, and if you do end up doing so, let someone else close it if you disagree with the outcome unanimously supported by post-relist comments.
  
  To me this makes even less sense when read alongside your most recent reply to me. You appear to be arguing that the page should essentially be kept (via an overturn to NC) on the strength of two !votes which do not address the fundamental problems with the page. One of which has been essentially disowned here at the DRV.
  
  You're not even arguing in the original comment that there should be a relist (which to me would also be pointless, unless someone could come up with a published source which the list was using as a criteria for inclusion), you are asking for the page to be kept.
  
  I ask everyone to think through the ramifications of keeping pages that are clearly OR. It is not inconceivable that this list would be used by media - and possibly even sloppy academics - as a source. When it is just a bunch of words put together by individuals using their own selection criteria.
  
  Keeping this page on any basis without a proper accounting of the major ways it breaks the deepest and most fundamental policies of Wikipedia bring the project into disrepute, encourages misinformation and makes a nonsense of the concept of consensus.
  
  The page was literally written to correct the wrong that the original (and main) author/editor saw in the published literature on the topic. I don't understand why this isn't a slamdunk, end of discussion. At very least that's a WP:TNT right there. JMWt (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse deletion. The closer was correct. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1 February 2024

List of current National Football League staffs – Closing admin (me) has restored & moved per request. Star Mississippi 23:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of current National Football League staffs (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Taking this to DRV as agreed upon by me and the deleting admin (at my talk). This is not exactly requesting to overturn the deletion discussion, but to allow for a restoration to project-space, e.g. at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/List of current National Football League staffs. This list is useful for editors in updating, writing, etc. work relating to NFL team staffs, and thus I think it would serve purpose in project-space; similar has been done with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Football League players with unidentified given names. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Good close but eh. I didn't comment at that AfD because I couldn't come up with a guideline-based reason for keeping but I think it's a useful navigational aid. It's been around for 15+ years, and there's no upkeep (it's just transcluded templates). It's not everyday a reader complains about an article that was deleted. That list probably got a fair amount of views. Not sure it's too different from the lists in Category:Lists of current team rosters. I know none of this is really a guideline-based reason to keep it but I thought I'd leave this comment. Also, technically you could just transclude the templates yourself in projectspace but that's not going to help readers. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Restore and move to project space as requested. The closer correctly noted a consensus that this page doesn't meet inclusion guidelines, but if it is useful to some editors there is no reason to prevent it's existing in project space. In general, "it's useful" is a poor reason to keep a list in mainspace but an excellent one to keep a subpage of a wikiproject. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] No issue. Weird, that User:Star Mississippi hesitates to move it into a WikiProject. Deleted from mainspace per NOTDIRECTORY is absolutely no issue for the list in a WikiProject. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Restore as requested. I actually don't think WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies here, this was a template transclusion article and served a valid navigational purpose and provided context beyond mere simple listings, but this isn't the AfD, and this sort of page could be useful to the project. SportingFlyer T·C 22:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Not much to add here as I said most of what I wanted to at BeanieFan's talk (and thank you for opening this as I hadn't had the chance). My hesitation in restoring this vs other draftifications I have and will continue to be willing to do was that I felt it could be perceived as a supervote, but it was also due in part to the AN requester's userpage re-creation having been speedied. I do think that would have been less likely to happen if it had been Beanie or another established editor doing so. If consensus here is that this should be restored, please do so with an early close as I am not at all against that happening and 100% against bureaucracy. Star Mississippi 01:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] As my primary concern of this being a supervote close is alleviated with the input here, I've restored the content and moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/List of current National Football League staffs as requested by @BeanieFan11/blessed here. Sorry to make you do this extra step, Beanie. Star Mississippi 23:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Endorse as a valid closure, but: Allow projectification (That's a word because we know what it means and language is descriptive.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Allow move to project space per the above request. Beaniefan and others at Wikiproject NFL have historically done well at maintaining articles on NFL players and coaches (particularly lesser known ones) and adding this list to the project is a useful tool to allow that. I endorse the close as unanimous consensus to delete, but will not "bold" that, since the deletion itself is not being challenged. Frank Anchor 14:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Consensus has been against maintaining similar constantly-out-of-date lists like "oldest" anything, but I see no reason why that can't exist outside of mainspace. It may not be what we want in a list article, but Wikiprojects or interested editors can keep a far wider range of things outside of mainspace, and that's unquestionably a good thing. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Jclemens: FWIW, the list requires no maintenance, as it is a list of templates. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Interesting. And the templates themselves require no maintenance? Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Considering they're templates on the pages of the most watched sports league in the United States, there's absolutely no problem with keeping them up to date. The oldest lists are weird. SportingFlyer T·C 22:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Restore as requested by the OP. Lightburst (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of current National Football League staffs – Closing admin (me) has restored & moved per request. Star Mississippi 23:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Taking this to DRV as agreed upon by me and the deleting admin (at my talk). This is not exactly requesting to overturn the deletion discussion, but to allow for a restoration to project-space, e.g. at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/List of current National Football League staffs. This list is useful for editors in updating, writing, etc. work relating to NFL team staffs, and thus I think it would serve purpose in project-space; similar has been done with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Football League players with unidentified given names. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good close but eh. I didn't comment at that AfD because I couldn't come up with a guideline-based reason for keeping but I think it's a useful navigational aid. It's been around for 15+ years, and there's no upkeep (it's just transcluded templates). It's not everyday a reader complains about an article that was deleted. That list probably got a fair amount of views. Not sure it's too different from the lists in Category:Lists of current team rosters. I know none of this is really a guideline-based reason to keep it but I thought I'd leave this comment. Also, technically you could just transclude the templates yourself in projectspace but that's not going to help readers. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restore and move to project space as requested. The closer correctly noted a consensus that this page doesn't meet inclusion guidelines, but if it is useful to some editors there is no reason to prevent it's existing in project space. In general, "it's useful" is a poor reason to keep a list in mainspace but an excellent one to keep a subpage of a wikiproject. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No issue. Weird, that User:Star Mississippi hesitates to move it into a WikiProject. Deleted from mainspace per NOTDIRECTORY is absolutely no issue for the list in a WikiProject. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restore as requested. I actually don't think WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies here, this was a template transclusion article and served a valid navigational purpose and provided context beyond mere simple listings, but this isn't the AfD, and this sort of page could be useful to the project. SportingFlyer T·C 22:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not much to add here as I said most of what I wanted to at BeanieFan's talk (and thank you for opening this as I hadn't had the chance). My hesitation in restoring this vs other draftifications I have and will continue to be willing to do was that I felt it could be perceived as a supervote, but it was also due in part to the AN requester's userpage re-creation having been speedied. I do think that would have been less likely to happen if it had been Beanie or another established editor doing so. If consensus here is that this should be restored, please do so with an early close as I am not at all against that happening and 100% against bureaucracy. Star Mississippi 01:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As my primary concern of this being a supervote close is alleviated with the input here, I've restored the content and moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/List of current National Football League staffs as requested by @BeanieFan11/blessed here. Sorry to make you do this extra step, Beanie. Star Mississippi 23:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse as a valid closure, but:
Allow projectification (That's a word because we know what it means and language is descriptive.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Allow move to project space per the above request. Beaniefan and others at Wikiproject NFL have historically done well at maintaining articles on NFL players and coaches (particularly lesser known ones) and adding this list to the project is a useful tool to allow that. I endorse the close as unanimous consensus to delete, but will not "bold" that, since the deletion itself is not being challenged. Frank Anchor 14:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus has been against maintaining similar constantly-out-of-date lists like "oldest" anything, but I see no reason why that can't exist outside of mainspace. It may not be what we want in a list article, but Wikiprojects or interested editors can keep a far wider range of things outside of mainspace, and that's unquestionably a good thing. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Jclemens: FWIW, the list requires no maintenance, as it is a list of templates. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Interesting. And the templates themselves require no maintenance? Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Considering they're templates on the pages of the most watched sports league in the United States, there's absolutely no problem with keeping them up to date. The oldest lists are weird. SportingFlyer T·C 22:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Restore as requested by the OP. Lightburst (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Bouriema Kimba – "Delete" closure endorsed. The article can be userfied or draftified on request by people who want to work on it, and can be recreated if sufficient sources about the person are found to establish notability (which may be easier now that it has been discovered that his name may have been misspelled). Sandstein 07:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bouriema Kimba (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I believe the closure of this discussion to be incorrect. To start, Kimba was a multi-time Olympian for Niger, setting national records in the nation's top sport (running) and later becoming the national athletics coach. He seems to have been regarded as one of the greatest athletes in Niger's history and one of the greatest coaches in Niger's history; he died in 2013. Habst noted that he passed WP:NSPORT as a multi-time national champion and record-setter, and I noted that Olympedia gave a quick biography of him (when for non-English countries, they only do that to exceptionally notable athletes; he is the only Nigerien person they profile). The discussion was pretty evenly split at four "deletes" and three "keeps"; each of the four deletes were more early on and were in effect "fails GNG" (Oaktree - nothing on google, (but of course, there would be no coverage on google); Geschichte fails gng, as well as Joelle and Let'srun similar). Now, to the argument towards keeping, that each of us "keep" voters advanced: Kimba was a very significant athlete and coach in Niger, including being one of their only Olympians, and we have...absolutely 0.00% access to the Nigerien newspapers of the time...I noted in my WP:IAR vote that it is simply incomprehensible to assume that a nation's newspapers would not cover perhaps their top athletic figure, especially one with a tragic death (there are a number of Nigerien newspapers of the time as noted in the discussion, none of which we can access). In reply to Joelle calling it "baseless" to believe that coverage exists (which NSPORT actually says is likely to exist here). Habst noted that We do know that SIGCOV exists for Kimba, here are the bases for this claim: We know that Kimba was a national champion at least two times, and was one of the most successful sprinters in Nigerien history including holding the Nigerien national record. We know that Kimba twice competed at the Olympic Games and was once the only sprinter representing Niger, in the marquee event of the marquee sport of one of the most notable sporting competitions in the world. We know that there are several daily newspapers in Niger, some of which are listed at Mass media in Niger. Looking at the list on that page, it seems like not even one of them was searched in this deletion discussion so far...We know that Kimba led an extremely active post-Olympic career, including becoming the national sprint coach of Niger and being the president of the Association Nigerienne des Olympiens. This is unusual even among Olympians – most of them only have limited involvement with the sport after retirement. We know that Kimba was still recognized years after his death, to the point where he received a posthumous trophy from the L'Association des Anciens Athlètes du Niger in 2014. We know that Kimba died in 2013, and that his exact date and manner (road accident) of death are known. The tradition of newspapers is to publish such information in obituaries for notable people; it is all but certain that such information would have been covered in one of the above media sources. Based on those points, we know that significant coverage exists – it's simply a matter of finding it now, and WP:BASIC allows us to keep the article with that knowledge in hand. Habst's comment was not rebutted, and neither was my vote which provided in-depth reasoning as to why it should be kept, after which the only comment was another user voting keep in agreement with us. In giving due weight to each vote, I do not believe that the "delete" argument is sufficiently strong to overcome the "keep" argument, especially given the closeness in numbers, and suggest this be overturned to no consensus. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Endorse. GNG requires concrete sources of a certain quality, and the SNGs such as NSPORT require that such sources exist in the abstract, i.e. that it can be reasonably assumed that they exist, and instruct when such assumptions are reasonable. But when in an AfD such an assumption is probed, and during the full discussion period, no such sources can actually be concretized (not even one), despite sincere attempts to identify them, the assumption is pierced, and it can no longer be considered that the subject is notable. When the newspaper articles are dug up, just recreate with suitable sourcing.—Alalch E. 21:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] The thing is, no one looked at relevant sources. Not a single 1990s Nigerien newspaper was searched. Not one. Zero. When none of the relevant sources are searched, it only makes sense that the presumption that such coverage exists should stand. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] We also did find sources on Kimba - while the blog was debatable, Olympedia is a reliable source that gives over 50 words of coverage. WP:100WORDS states that Fifty such words would likely be significant, and it especially should be considering how insanely difficult it is to find sources on these kinds of topics. Though this is not the place to rehash the discussion; this is on whether four "delete" votes with little reasoning aside from "fails GNG from google search" can not only equal, but overcome three "keep" votes with very in-depth and strong reasoning as to why coverage exists. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] You don’t seem to have read that the reliable source needs to be a secondary source. The source needs its author to add comment of some kind. At the very least, look for adjectives. Otherwise, it’s just facts, and facts don’t meet the GNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Facts don't meet the GNG Huh? Its the coverage of a subject that counts. Also, Olympedia is published by the preeminent Olympic historians years after Kimba died, I don't see how that isn't secondary? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Read Secondary source. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] I still don't see how your statement is true; if the only way one could get notable was author's commentary (and not coverage of actual significance), then there would be a very severe lack of articles on historical figures! Would you mind providing relevant Wiki-policy stating that coverage without opinionated commentary cannot be considered for notability? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] WP:PSTS. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Wikipedia-notability means that others, in reliable sources have demonstrated the topic to be of interest by covering it. “Covering” implies, although not so obviously, that these others have generated creative content on the topic. Generated creative content is necessarily transformative of the basic facts. The basic facts are always, in the field of historiology, to which enclopjedias belong, primary source material. Collecting facts without commentary conflicts with WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Including unsourced commentary conflicts with WP:NOR. There has to be sourced commentary, beyond sourced facts. The commentary doesn’t have to be “opinionated”, but it has to have evidence of opinion from the author. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Endorse. User:BeanieFan11’s !vote was worthless. Many words claiming we know he is the greatest, with no suitable sources, is a worthless !vote. If no reliable source has covered this person, Wikipedia must not be the first. Wikipedia is not an original publisher. If you can find GNG meeting sources, start a draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] @SmokeyJoe: FWIW, Habst's vote explains why he was the greatest - one of the only Olympians for the country (of 20+ million), multi-time national champ, national record-holder, and Olympedia states that he was one of the best as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] We don’t care if he was the greatest. We only care if there’s a source that says he was the greatest. Habst didn’t supply links or proper citations. He alluded, but didn’t substantiate. That’s a reason to Draftify. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] @SmokeyJoe, thank you for commenting. All of my statements in the AfD were substantiated with sources, properly cited with links to WP:RS. The links were all in the article. For example here is the source that Kimba is a national champion in the 100m and 200m and of his posthumous award: "Activités de l'Association des Anciens Athlètes du Niger : Promouvoir la pratique de l'athlétisme". Niger Express \| Le Site d'Informations sur le Niger (in French). 2014-12-16. Retrieved 2024-02-02. And here is the source that he was the president of the Association Nigerienne des Olympiens: Encyclopedia of associations. International organizations : an associations unlimited reference : a guide to more than 32,400 international nonprofit membership organizations including multinational and binational groups, and national organizations based outside of the United States, concerned with all subjects or areas of activities. Internet Archive. Detroit : Gale, Cengage Learning. 2015. ISBN 978-1-57302-248-4.`((cite book))`: CS1 maint: others (link) And here is a source for the rest of the information about his coaching career: "Boureima Kimba". Sports-Reference. Archived from the original on 2020-04-17. This is excluding the dozens (hundreds?) of newspaper citations that list him as competing in both the 1992 and 1996 Olympics in the marquee event of the Olympics (sprinting). What do you think about these sources? --Habst (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] User:Habst. The first doesn’t load for me. The second doesn’t discuss the subject. The third is something but is too brief. In terms of WP:THREE, thanks for limiting to three sources that you ask me to review. I suggest continuing this in draftspace. It isn’t always easy to explain why a source isn’t good enough. For difficult to access sources, I might ask you to quote the pertinent coverage. I note that I ask for quality secondary sources, and you respond by linking WP:RS, which is not the same thing. I would like to see this historical deceased athlete covered, and I think the only route to that is via draftification and finding two or three qualifying sources. Follow the advice at WP:THREE, after the close of this DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Comment—potentially misspelled name: Unrelated to everything discussed above, a thing worth noting: Bouriema Kimba could be a misspelling. Boureima Kimba could be the correct spelling. See ProQuest 108919574 and ProQuest 109657241. Newspapers.com has him as Boureima too.—Alalch E. 22:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Endorse. Seraphimblade's reading of consensus was correct. WP:IAR is not a valid notability argument, nor is the PERX that referenced it. BeanieFan11 makes a valid argument about the scarcity of sources in places like Niger. However, their presumption that such coverage exists is contrary to WP:BURDEN. In the end, especially with biographies, saying that sources must exist is not enough, unless we can cite them. Owen× ☎ 22:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Sigh. We've got a mis-spelled name on a two-time Olympian, with coverage of his tragic death on a blogspot site which is probably a blogspot site not because it's a blog but because it's Nigerien media, and by my count four dead links to former web pages about him, though three only look like databases - the fourth being the link in the German wikipedia article for him. None of the Nigerien newspapers I've found are searchable or even load. I think there's clearly enough hints that there have been significant coverage for there to be an article and while I can't fault the result I'm kind of frustrated the discussion was very much a hard no without discussing just how grey this discussion was, because it's not clear to me if anyone tried to look for sources. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] I understand your point, SportingFlyer, but what would you have the closing admin do in such a case? Go, "Consensus is to delete, but that's because you're not trying hard enough to find sources, so I'll ignore it"? The AfD went through two relists, with eight participants, including some very experienced editors relying on policy and guidelines, putting in time to look at it. I agree with you that this is an unfortunate outcome, but it was the only possible outcome given the consensus in this case. Owen× ☎ 23:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] I have no problem with the close, but I don't think that's the issue here. SportingFlyer T·C 08:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Weak Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer when a majority of editors said that the sources did not establish notability. But: Allow Draftification - Since the deletion was for notability reasons, there is no reason not to put the article into draft space so that the appellant or other editors can find the sources that we are confident exist. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Weak endorse - While I fundamentally disagree with Owenx's claim that IAR is not a valid notability argument (IAR can be used to argue that any policy/guideline, including notability, shouldn't be rigidly applied because it explains the rules are not always perfect) and I find Beanie's IAR keep vote to be valid (and the perx underneath it), I still find consensus to delete. The only other "keep" vote cites presumed notability via NTRACK only. The failure to find SIGCOV to meet GNG takes precedence. I have no objection to restoring as a draft per Robert McClenon. Frank Anchor 16:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] IAR can hardly be a valid notability argument. Notability loses meaning when you apply too much IAR to it, because it's a wholly artificial construct that only has meaning as a "creature of PAG", and means nothing when its meaning is improvised ad hoc, becoming just an empty husk of a word. It can't revert to the natural meaning of eminent, prominent, famous, renowned, because those are completely divorced from any practical application on the project. IAR can be applied to the deletion policy in the following way: "This article about a non-notable subject should be kept in spite of its lack of notability". That's a meaningful IAR-derived statement. —Alalch E. 19:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] So, yes there could have been argument along the lines of keeping in spite of lack of notability, meaning ignoring the rule that articles on non-notable subjects are deleted, because keeping the specific article is good for the encyclopedia for reasons XYZ. Then a consensus might form around how it's good for the encyclopedia. But an argument that the subject should perpetually be assumed to be notable and when someone visits the Niger national archive and finds the printed articles there, the subject will be confirmed as notable (which will have been the same as the subject being assumed as notable for all practical intents and purposes, because he was unassailably assumed as notable, so why even bother), and doesn't explain how it's great for Wikipedia that this subject lacking coverage should be somehow encyclopedically covered after all (and how its even possible), and no consensus around that viewpoint forms, that's different. That's not IAR. That's alluding to notability without substance. —Alalch E. 20:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] I think that's where the problem here lies - if you look closely, there's evidence of substance, even if the Nigerien article cited in German Wikipedia is no longer online, and even though the blogspot was instantly rejected as unreliable. Even the BEFORE search here was flawed - using the name as printed is incorrect, and both search engines I just tried don't recognize it was flipped. There's more here than just the "well there's probably coverage." We know there's coverage, it's just inaccessible, but the coverage that's out there allows for a valid stub. I think that's the nature of my frustration here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Overturn to no consensus Notability can be disregarded on any encyclopedic basis, e.g. systematic difficulty obtaining sources in the subject's country. !votes that treat N as a policy should have therefore been accorded less weight, because it isn't. "Fails GNG, we must delete it" is erroneous: notability isn't required unlike V, NPOV, NOR, etc., and keeping representation of notable Africans in a systemically under-reported context is a reasonably pillar-compliant reason to ignore N in this context. Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Failing notability doesn’t necessarily mean delete, true, but someone has to suggest a plausible merge target. My best find is ~~Nigeria at the Olympics~~ Niger at the Olympics, where he doesn’t fit but could be made to fit if that page covered the subject of its title, rather than just medal winners. No one at AfD argued like that, so the next best thing is to Draftify. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] FWIW it would be Niger at the Olympics. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks. My apologies. Fixed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Failing notability doesn't mean anything of the sort. Since N is a guideline, not policy, a local consensus can decide that there's a good reason to not apply it in a specific case. Now, in practice, that's going to be rarer than hen's teeth and an ATD outcome is going to be far and away more common... but notability is still an overridable, if strong, consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Endorse. I think that the keep side is weaker than the delete side. The keep votes included one keep vote citing a 4-sentence blog article for SPORTBASIC, another largely based upon IAR and another that qualifies the vote as a "very weak keep". I don't see how that is stronger than the delete votes, but even if the keep side is given equal weight, the numerical majority of 5 delete to 3 keeps is enough for a consensus IMO. As such I think the closer made an entirely reasonable decision here. VickKiang (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Is there any opposition to restoring and moving this to User:BeanieFan11/Bouriema Kimba, in case we ever find better coverage? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Strong support for this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Same.—Alalch E. 00:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] I have no objection to userfying/drafting as well, provided of course that it would only be moved to mainspace if new and better coverage is found. VickKiang (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] While I endorse the close as a correct reading of consensus, this outcome here makes sense. To me the AfD reads as "not notable based on the sources to which we have access" rather than "impossible for him to meet notability" so draft or userfication makes sense. Star Mississippi 00:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] What if we just voided the AfD and started over on the basis of the misspelling alone? SportingFlyer T·C 21:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] This seems like a better alternative than draft- or userification to me. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Bouriema Kimba – "Delete" closure endorsed. The article can be userfied or draftified on request by people who want to work on it, and can be recreated if sufficient sources about the person are found to establish notability (which may be easier now that it has been discovered that his name may have been misspelled). Sandstein 07:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

I believe the closure of this discussion to be incorrect. To start, Kimba was a multi-time Olympian for Niger, setting national records in the nation's top sport (running) and later becoming the national athletics coach. He seems to have been regarded as one of the greatest athletes in Niger's history and one of the greatest coaches in Niger's history; he died in 2013. Habst noted that he passed WP:NSPORT as a multi-time national champion and record-setter, and I noted that Olympedia gave a quick biography of him (when for non-English countries, they only do that to exceptionally notable athletes; he is the only Nigerien person they profile). The discussion was pretty evenly split at four "deletes" and three "keeps"; each of the four deletes were more early on and were in effect "fails GNG" (Oaktree - nothing on google, (but of course, there would be no coverage on google); Geschichte fails gng, as well as Joelle and Let'srun similar).
Now, to the argument towards keeping, that each of us "keep" voters advanced: Kimba was a very significant athlete and coach in Niger, including being one of their only Olympians, and we have...absolutely 0.00% access to the Nigerien newspapers of the time...I noted in my WP:IAR vote that it is simply incomprehensible to assume that a nation's newspapers would not cover perhaps their top athletic figure, especially one with a tragic death (there are a number of Nigerien newspapers of the time as noted in the discussion, none of which we can access). In reply to Joelle calling it "baseless" to believe that coverage exists (which NSPORT actually says is likely to exist here). Habst noted that

We do know that SIGCOV exists for Kimba, here are the bases for this claim:
We know that Kimba was a national champion at least two times, and was one of the most successful sprinters in Nigerien history including holding the Nigerien national record. We know that Kimba twice competed at the Olympic Games and was once the only sprinter representing Niger, in the marquee event of the marquee sport of one of the most notable sporting competitions in the world. We know that there are several daily newspapers in Niger, some of which are listed at Mass media in Niger. Looking at the list on that page, it seems like not even one of them was searched in this deletion discussion so far...We know that Kimba led an extremely active post-Olympic career, including becoming the national sprint coach of Niger and being the president of the Association Nigerienne des Olympiens. This is unusual even among Olympians – most of them only have limited involvement with the sport after retirement. We know that Kimba was still recognized years after his death, to the point where he received a posthumous trophy from the L'Association des Anciens Athlètes du Niger in 2014. We know that Kimba died in 2013, and that his exact date and manner (road accident) of death are known. The tradition of newspapers is to publish such information in obituaries for notable people; it is all but certain that such information would have been covered in one of the above media sources.
Based on those points, we know that significant coverage exists – it's simply a matter of finding it now, and WP:BASIC allows us to keep the article with that knowledge in hand.

Habst's comment was not rebutted, and neither was my vote which provided in-depth reasoning as to why it should be kept, after which the only comment was another user voting keep in agreement with us. In giving due weight to each vote, I do not believe that the "delete" argument is sufficiently strong to overcome the "keep" argument, especially given the closeness in numbers, and suggest this be overturned to no consensus. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Endorse. GNG requires concrete sources of a certain quality, and the SNGs such as NSPORT require that such sources exist in the abstract, i.e. that it can be reasonably assumed that they exist, and instruct when such assumptions are reasonable. But when in an AfD such an assumption is probed, and during the full discussion period, no such sources can actually be concretized (not even one), despite sincere attempts to identify them, the assumption is pierced, and it can no longer be considered that the subject is notable. When the newspaper articles are dug up, just recreate with suitable sourcing.—Alalch E. 21:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The thing is, no one looked at relevant sources. Not a single 1990s Nigerien newspaper was searched. Not one. Zero. When none of the relevant sources are searched, it only makes sense that the presumption that such coverage exists should stand. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - We also did find sources on Kimba - while the blog was debatable, Olympedia is a reliable source that gives over 50 words of coverage. WP:100WORDS states that Fifty such words would likely be significant, and it especially should be considering how insanely difficult it is to find sources on these kinds of topics. Though this is not the place to rehash the discussion; this is on whether four "delete" votes with little reasoning aside from "fails GNG from google search" can not only equal, but overcome three "keep" votes with very in-depth and strong reasoning as to why coverage exists. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You don’t seem to have read that the reliable source needs to be a secondary source. The source needs its author to add comment of some kind. At the very least, look for adjectives. Otherwise, it’s just facts, and facts don’t meet the GNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Facts don't meet the GNG Huh? Its the coverage of a subject that counts. Also, Olympedia is published by the preeminent Olympic historians years after Kimba died, I don't see how that isn't secondary? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Read Secondary source. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I still don't see how your statement is true; if the only way one could get notable was author's commentary (and not coverage of actual significance), then there would be a very severe lack of articles on historical figures! Would you mind providing relevant Wiki-policy stating that coverage without opinionated commentary cannot be considered for notability? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:PSTS. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    
    Wikipedia-notability means that others, in reliable sources have demonstrated the topic to be of interest by covering it. “Covering” implies, although not so obviously, that these others have generated creative content on the topic. Generated creative content is necessarily transformative of the basic facts. The basic facts are always, in the field of historiology, to which enclopjedias belong, primary source material. Collecting facts without commentary conflicts with WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Including unsourced commentary conflicts with WP:NOR. There has to be sourced commentary, beyond sourced facts. The commentary doesn’t have to be “opinionated”, but it has to have evidence of opinion from the author. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse. User:BeanieFan11’s !vote was worthless. Many words claiming we know he is the greatest, with no suitable sources, is a worthless !vote. If no reliable source has covered this person, Wikipedia must not be the first. Wikipedia is not an original publisher. If you can find GNG meeting sources, start a draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe: FWIW, Habst's vote explains why he was the greatest - one of the only Olympians for the country (of 20+ million), multi-time national champ, national record-holder, and Olympedia states that he was one of the best as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  We don’t care if he was the greatest. We only care if there’s a source that says he was the greatest. Habst didn’t supply links or proper citations. He alluded, but didn’t substantiate. That’s a reason to Draftify. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SmokeyJoe, thank you for commenting. All of my statements in the AfD were substantiated with sources, properly cited with links to WP:RS. The links were all in the article.

For example here is the source that Kimba is a national champion in the 100m and 200m and of his posthumous award: "Activités de l'Association des Anciens Athlètes du Niger : Promouvoir la pratique de l'athlétisme". Niger Express | Le Site d'Informations sur le Niger (in French). 2014-12-16. Retrieved 2024-02-02.

And here is the source that he was the president of the Association Nigerienne des Olympiens: Encyclopedia of associations. International organizations : an associations unlimited reference : a guide to more than 32,400 international nonprofit membership organizations including multinational and binational groups, and national organizations based outside of the United States, concerned with all subjects or areas of activities. Internet Archive. Detroit : Gale, Cengage Learning. 2015. ISBN 978-1-57302-248-4.((cite book)): CS1 maint: others (link)

And here is a source for the rest of the information about his coaching career: "Boureima Kimba". Sports-Reference. Archived from the original on 2020-04-17.

This is excluding the dozens (hundreds?) of newspaper citations that list him as competing in both the 1992 and 1996 Olympics in the marquee event of the Olympics (sprinting). What do you think about these sources? --Habst (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Habst. The first doesn’t load for me. The second doesn’t discuss the subject. The third is something but is too brief.

In terms of WP:THREE, thanks for limiting to three sources that you ask me to review. I suggest continuing this in draftspace. It isn’t always easy to explain why a source isn’t good enough. For difficult to access sources, I might ask you to quote the pertinent coverage.

I note that I ask for quality secondary sources, and you respond by linking WP:RS, which is not the same thing.

I would like to see this historical deceased athlete covered, and I think the only route to that is via draftification and finding two or three qualifying sources. Follow the advice at WP:THREE, after the close of this DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment—potentially misspelled name: Unrelated to everything discussed above, a thing worth noting: Bouriema Kimba could be a misspelling. Boureima Kimba could be the correct spelling. See ProQuest 108919574 and ProQuest 109657241. Newspapers.com has him as Boureima too.—Alalch E. 22:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse. Seraphimblade's reading of consensus was correct. WP:IAR is not a valid notability argument, nor is the PERX that referenced it. BeanieFan11 makes a valid argument about the scarcity of sources in places like Niger. However, their presumption that such coverage exists is contrary to WP:BURDEN. In the end, especially with biographies, saying that sources must exist is not enough, unless we can cite them. Owen× ☎ 22:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh. We've got a mis-spelled name on a two-time Olympian, with coverage of his tragic death on a blogspot site which is probably a blogspot site not because it's a blog but because it's Nigerien media, and by my count four dead links to former web pages about him, though three only look like databases - the fourth being the link in the German wikipedia article for him. None of the Nigerien newspapers I've found are searchable or even load. I think there's clearly enough hints that there have been significant coverage for there to be an article and while I can't fault the result I'm kind of frustrated the discussion was very much a hard no without discussing just how grey this discussion was, because it's not clear to me if anyone tried to look for sources. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand your point, SportingFlyer, but what would you have the closing admin do in such a case? Go, "Consensus is to delete, but that's because you're not trying hard enough to find sources, so I'll ignore it"? The AfD went through two relists, with eight participants, including some very experienced editors relying on policy and guidelines, putting in time to look at it. I agree with you that this is an unfortunate outcome, but it was the only possible outcome given the consensus in this case. Owen× ☎ 23:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no problem with the close, but I don't think that's the issue here. SportingFlyer T·C 08:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer when a majority of editors said that the sources did not establish notability. But:
Allow Draftification - Since the deletion was for notability reasons, there is no reason not to put the article into draft space so that the appellant or other editors can find the sources that we are confident exist. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak endorse - While I fundamentally disagree with Owenx's claim that IAR is not a valid notability argument (IAR can be used to argue that any policy/guideline, including notability, shouldn't be rigidly applied because it explains the rules are not always perfect) and I find Beanie's IAR keep vote to be valid (and the perx underneath it), I still find consensus to delete. The only other "keep" vote cites presumed notability via NTRACK only. The failure to find SIGCOV to meet GNG takes precedence. I have no objection to restoring as a draft per Robert McClenon. Frank Anchor 16:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IAR can hardly be a valid notability argument. Notability loses meaning when you apply too much IAR to it, because it's a wholly artificial construct that only has meaning as a "creature of PAG", and means nothing when its meaning is improvised ad hoc, becoming just an empty husk of a word. It can't revert to the natural meaning of eminent, prominent, famous, renowned, because those are completely divorced from any practical application on the project. IAR can be applied to the deletion policy in the following way: "This article about a non-notable subject should be kept in spite of its lack of notability". That's a meaningful IAR-derived statement. —Alalch E. 19:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, yes there could have been argument along the lines of keeping in spite of lack of notability, meaning ignoring the rule that articles on non-notable subjects are deleted, because keeping the specific article is good for the encyclopedia for reasons XYZ. Then a consensus might form around how it's good for the encyclopedia. But an argument that the subject should perpetually be assumed to be notable and when someone visits the Niger national archive and finds the printed articles there, the subject will be confirmed as notable (which will have been the same as the subject being assumed as notable for all practical intents and purposes, because he was unassailably assumed as notable, so why even bother), and doesn't explain how it's great for Wikipedia that this subject lacking coverage should be somehow encyclopedically covered after all (and how its even possible), and no consensus around that viewpoint forms, that's different. That's not IAR. That's alluding to notability without substance. —Alalch E. 20:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that's where the problem here lies - if you look closely, there's evidence of substance, even if the Nigerien article cited in German Wikipedia is no longer online, and even though the blogspot was instantly rejected as unreliable. Even the BEFORE search here was flawed - using the name as printed is incorrect, and both search engines I just tried don't recognize it was flipped. There's more here than just the "well there's probably coverage." We know there's coverage, it's just inaccessible, but the coverage that's out there allows for a valid stub. I think that's the nature of my frustration here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overturn to no consensus Notability can be disregarded on any encyclopedic basis, e.g. systematic difficulty obtaining sources in the subject's country. !votes that treat N as a policy should have therefore been accorded less weight, because it isn't. "Fails GNG, we must delete it" is erroneous: notability isn't required unlike V, NPOV, NOR, etc., and keeping representation of notable Africans in a systemically under-reported context is a reasonably pillar-compliant reason to ignore N in this context. Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Failing notability doesn’t necessarily mean delete, true, but someone has to suggest a plausible merge target. My best find is ~~Nigeria at the Olympics~~ Niger at the Olympics, where he doesn’t fit but could be made to fit if that page covered the subject of its title, rather than just medal winners. No one at AfD argued like that, so the next best thing is to Draftify. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW it would be Niger at the Olympics. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. My apologies. Fixed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Failing notability doesn't mean anything of the sort. Since N is a guideline, not policy, a local consensus can decide that there's a good reason to not apply it in a specific case. Now, in practice, that's going to be rarer than hen's teeth and an ATD outcome is going to be far and away more common... but notability is still an overridable, if strong, consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse. I think that the keep side is weaker than the delete side. The keep votes included one keep vote citing a 4-sentence blog article for SPORTBASIC, another largely based upon IAR and another that qualifies the vote as a "very weak keep". I don't see how that is stronger than the delete votes, but even if the keep side is given equal weight, the numerical majority of 5 delete to 3 keeps is enough for a consensus IMO. As such I think the closer made an entirely reasonable decision here. VickKiang (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any opposition to restoring and moving this to User:BeanieFan11/Bouriema Kimba, in case we ever find better coverage? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support for this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same.—Alalch E. 00:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no objection to userfying/drafting as well, provided of course that it would only be moved to mainspace if new and better coverage is found. VickKiang (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I endorse the close as a correct reading of consensus, this outcome here makes sense. To me the AfD reads as "not notable based on the sources to which we have access" rather than "impossible for him to meet notability" so draft or userfication makes sense. Star Mississippi 00:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What if we just voided the AfD and started over on the basis of the misspelling alone? SportingFlyer T·C 21:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems like a better alternative than draft- or userification to me. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

31 January 2024

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/Years – Speedy deletion overturned; feel free to start an RfD if warranted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives previously existed at this title, before being moved without a redirect in October 2023. Due to the fact that the page had existed at the previous title since its creation in 2007, I recently recreated the page as an ((R from move)), as I was concerned about the possibility of external links made to the page otherwise being broken. This redirect was speedily deleted by JPxG under CSD G6.

From my perspective, this redirect should not have been deleted. Per the redirect guideline, redirects as a result of pagemoves should not normally be deleted without good reason, due to the risks of breaking incoming links; and [l]inks that have existed for a significant length of time...should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. In their deletion log comment, JPxG noted that there are no incoming [internal] links (as a result of a JWB run). However, as I commented on their talk page, there may well be external links to the previous title that will currently be broken, especially given that the previous page was at that title for over 17 years. In addition, I don't believe that this redirect was G6-eligible - the deletion wasn't uncontroversial maintenance, as I had created it specifically because I thought it ought to exist as a redirect. ~~Furthermore, as JPxG had previously moved the archive page away from this title, this was arguably an involved deletion.~~

Let me know if there are any queries or if I've worded anything poorly. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 18:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC) sentence struck 21:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC) per comment belowReply[reply]

A prior administrative action does not normally render an administrator as 'involved', and I disagree significantly that this was an action that would be considered 'involved'. Further, it is totally out of the scope of DRV to consider whether a deletion is involved or not. I would encourage the applicant to strike that part of their statement above as unnecessary; if they genuinely believe this was an involved action, they should take that concern to ANI or ArbCom. Daniel (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Daniel: Apologies if that is out of scope. I searched the DRV archives prior to this filing, and I noticed that such concerns had been brought up in previous DRVs as a reason to support overturning a deletion (e.g. [1]), hence why I included the concern in my request for review. I would also disagree that the prior action was an administrative one - I (albeit with limited experience) would have thought it would be classed as a content matter, over the title of a page. I am, however, happy to strike that sentence - if for no other reason than the fact that it's not necessary for deciding whether or not the speedy deletion was otherwise in scope. (Re. ANI/ArbCom, I wouldn't wish to file a case on the basis of this single deletion that I believe was out of process.) All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 21:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for striking. It allows for a cleaner review of the deletion without the spectacle of assessing if a deletion is involved or not, which is a totally other matter in today's editing and administrative environment (and probably has changed somewhat since 2018). Daniel (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And as a follow-up, overturn and send to RfD - on the principle that if a G6 is disputed by an editor in good standing and in good faith, it is no longer uncontroversial. Daniel (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overturn and send to RfD. Whether involved or not, this was clearly not an uncontroversial G6 candidate, seeing as an experienced editor in good standing requested it. That's normally enough for a 'keep' in RfD, let alone prevent a speedy. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy undelete and send to XfD as a reasonable contest of a speedy deletion by a user in good standing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am fine with overturning this and taking it to be deleted at MfD instead, but I strongly hope you reconsider. There have been hundreds and hundreds of useless Signpost pages subjected to speedy deletions in the last year as I've been cleaning up the pagespace, and consensus has always been in favor of doing this. Last year someone demanded that I take them through formal processes, to prove with complete thoroughness that the community accepted them being deleted. The main outcome of this was that all the maintenance processes were brought to a grinding halt for about a month while they percolated through XfD, and all of them were approved, and it just wasted a bunch of my time (as well as the time of all the XfD participants, closers, etc). Here is a list of all of those nominations that I had to type out:

Extended content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Template/Signpost-block-end: nominated at TfD; notified Headbomb (talk · contribs) 23:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Template/Signpost-block-start: nominated at TfD; notified Headbomb (talk · contribs) 23:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Template:Signpost-header/Single: nominated at MfD 23:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links.
Template:Signpost/DateCoundown: nominated at RfD; Target: Template:Signpost/DateCountdown (notified); notified FeRDNYC (talk · contribs) 00:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-end/preload: nominated at RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-comments-end/preload (notified); notified Resident Mario (talk · contribs) 00:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-end/preload-content: nominated at RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-comments-end/commentspage (notified); notified Pretzels (talk · contribs) 00:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-start-end: nominated at MfD; notified TheDJ (talk · contribs) 00:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reason: Obsolete template that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-start v2: nominated at RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-start-v2 (notified); notified TheDJ (talk · contribs) 00:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet/temp: nominated at MfD; notified Bri (talk · contribs) 00:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reason: Template that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-header/Single: nominated at RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-header (notified); notified Funandtrvl (talk · contribs) 00:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-header: nominated at RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-header-v2 (notified); notified TheDJ (talk · contribs) 00:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-start-v2: nominated at RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-start-v2 (notified); notified TheDJ (talk · contribs) 00:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-block-end-v2: nominated at RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-block-end-v2 (notified); notified TheDJ (talk · contribs) 00:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-block-start-v2: nominated at RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-block-start-v2 (notified); notified TheDJ (talk · contribs) 00:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Suggestion-featured: nominated at MfD; notified Pretzels (talk · contribs) 00:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reason: Obsolete template from 2009 that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/N&N: nominated at RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/NAN (notified); notified Skomorokh (talk · contribs) 00:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Wikipedia:Signpost/Newsroon: nominated at RfD; Target: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom; notified Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 01:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reason: Redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for my own userspace and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.

jp×g 🗯️ 01:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be clear, this DRV is not intended to hamper efforts to clean up Signpost-space - on the contrary, I think the work being done is genuinely admirable. I created the redirect (& asked for this deletion review) purely because I am concerned about the effects of not leaving a redirect after the move of a public-facing archive page (of a notable newspaper) that was at its previous title for 17 years.

Regarding the linked XfDs, they seem to be primarily for template redirects (albeit a few were regarding miscellaneous pages and/or templates themselves). Regarding RfD specifically, I've looked through the discussions linked above, and I believe that this redirect is substantially different from ones that have previously been discussed & deleted:

Wikipedia:Signpost/Quick Start: this was an ((R from move)), but the page in question had only existed at that title for just over a month before being moved to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Quick Start. The harm in deleting this was further minimised due to the fact that it's purely an internal Signpost-facing page.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/N&N & Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-end/preload-content: the target pages existed at these titles for less than a day ([1], [2]), and could arguably have been deleted as ((db-error))s. There was no risk of breaking links in these cases (in addition to the fact that they were internal Signpost-facing unused template redirects).
It's unclear from the logs where exactly Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-header/Single originated, but - in any event - it seems like it was an obselete, unused internal Signpost-facing template redirect, with minimal harm resulting from deletion (as far as I can see).
Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-end/preload: The page previously at this title was there for quite a few years ([1]), but potential harm from this redirect's deletion is minimised by the fact that it was (presumably) an obsolete, internal Signpost-facing template redirect.
The rest of the template redirects bundled into this RfD had all been at the previous title in question for less than two months ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), were all obsolete internal Signpost-facing template redirects, & which I assume were all unused - all of which minimised the risk of harm from deletion.
I can't find a creation log entry for Wikipedia:Signpost/Newsroon, but judging by the RfD, it seems to have been a typo that the creator may not have realized existed until the discussion (at which point it was G7ed at his request).

In my view, the redirect in question at this DRV - Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/Years - is substantially different from the previous RfD nominations; for the reasons that the page at that title is/was a public-facing archive link, was being actively used (judging by the pageviews at the current title), and was there for over 17 years (in my opinion, significantly increasing the risk of creating dead links as a result of this redirect's deletion). All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 06:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having a lot of redirects can be very confusing (I too experienced this when I created the v2 layout. Especially for the template-like pages, I think those redirects should be deleted. If you encounter a link like that, you are mostly likely interested in it for technical reasons, and you are probably more than capable to find the history if you really want to. For content pages, a redirect might make more sense. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the explanation, JPxG. I'm not sure what purpose this long list serves. It comes across a bit like the kind of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument that you, JPxG, would discard when closing an XfD, and rightly so. I think we all appreciate the massive cleanup work you did around Signpost, but in this case, it's fair to say you acted hastily. There may very well be valid reasons to keep that redir deleted, but "G6" isn't one of them. Since you are amenable to overturning, I think the right thing for you to do at this point is to undelete the page yourself, allowing any uninvolved admin to speedy-close this DRV. You or anyone may then start an RfD for it. I don't believe anyone here will object to this course of action. Owen× ☎ 14:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JPxG, may I politely suggest you collapse this list? ^Queen of _Hearts 18:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sure jp×g 🗯️ 21:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Send to RFD only the one nominated page, without changing the others. Good-faith dispute means a G6 is no longer uncontroversial. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overturn and start an RfD per above. I get everything, but that's how it should be.—Alalch E. 17:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overturn this is classic WP:!G6 and always has been. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, of all the CSD's, G6 is the one where the threshold for an objection sending to XfD should be the lowest. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

30 January 2024

File:Ariana Grande - Yes, And.png – Endorsed - Apparently an admin looked at the duplicate upload and it is super duper okay. This deletion should not have happened, but with the reupload accepted there is no action required here. (non-admin closure) N Ø 20:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Ariana Grande - Yes, And.png (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`restore) Discussion about this particular file was split off between Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 January 22#File:Ariana Grande - Yes, And.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 January 18#File:Ariana Grande - Yes, And? (edit).png, and there is no consensus that the deleted file should be removed from Eternal Sunshine (album). N Ø 10:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Defer pending the closure of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 January 18#File:Ariana_Grande_-_Yes,_And?_(edit).png to avoid yet more split discussions. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Stifle: Someone has already made a duplicate upload, so I don't think anything is achieved from delaying the original file's restoration. The deletion of the file is objectively erroneous since its use on the album page was not disputed.--N Ø 13:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] @MaranoFan, the reason why that file was deleted was because the image's primary purpose was not to be the single cover, but rather be the album cover. The two ways it could have gone after that was for the image to be reuploaded into a different, more accurate name - which I did - or contest its deletion and rename it to a name more accurate for the cover's purpose, which is a more lengthy and unnecessary process ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"} _{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 13:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Your Power, the fix for an incorrect title is a page move, not a reupload. Cheers.--N Ø 13:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] @MaranoFan: If your request were to be granted, what will happen is that (1) the file I uploaded will be deleted, (2) the file in discussion will be restored, and (3) the name of the restored file will promptly be moved to that of the deleted file anyway. This is redundant. Remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; let's not get too caught up in complicated discussions like this, per Stifle, in favor of being sticklers to the rules ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"} _{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 13:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] That does not make sense. The deleted file had a fair-use rationale present for use on the Eternal Sunshine album page. The original uploader did not make any error and as such their original upload should be retained. If there was consensus said file should be deleted from Wikipedia, your reupload a few minutes later is a standard WP:G4 case.--N Ø 14:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] @MaranoFan: this does not address my point about WP:BURO. WP:IAR applies here. regardless of whether you agree or not, i heavily recommend this discussion be paused until the other open discussion regarding the cover art files is closed ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"} _{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 14:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Neither WP:BURO or WP:IAR have an application here. The files are identical uploads so readers see the same thing. Accurately retaining the chronologically first upload does not prevent improvement of WP or make any functional difference in what readers see. You have gone ahead and uploaded the same file again(?) so why do you want this discussion to pause?--N Ø 14:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] then what you are looking for is a history merge . again, i recommend deferring this discussion. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"} _{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 14:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] I am not. I am looking for the first perfectly fine upload with a perfectly good fair-use rationale for the album article to be restored and not much else. Erroneous deletion from the admin who clearly did not see the other discussion should not be taken advantage of to supplant the file uploader!--N Ø 14:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:Ariana Grande - Yes, And.png – Endorsed - Apparently an admin looked at the duplicate upload and it is super duper okay. This deletion should not have happened, but with the reupload accepted there is no action required here. (non-admin closure) N Ø 20:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Discussion about this particular file was split off between Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 January 22#File:Ariana Grande - Yes, And.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 January 18#File:Ariana Grande - Yes, And? (edit).png, and there is no consensus that the deleted file should be removed from Eternal Sunshine (album). N Ø 10:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defer pending the closure of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 January 18#File:Ariana_Grande_-_Yes,_And?_(edit).png to avoid yet more split discussions. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stifle: Someone has already made a duplicate upload, so I don't think anything is achieved from delaying the original file's restoration. The deletion of the file is objectively erroneous since its use on the album page was not disputed.--N Ø 13:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MaranoFan, the reason why that file was deleted was because the image's primary purpose was not to be the single cover, but rather be the album cover. The two ways it could have gone after that was for the image to be reuploaded into a different, more accurate name - which I did - or contest its deletion and rename it to a name more accurate for the cover's purpose, which is a more lengthy and unnecessary process ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 13:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Your Power, the fix for an incorrect title is a page move, not a reupload. Cheers.--N Ø 13:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MaranoFan: If your request were to be granted, what will happen is that (1) the file I uploaded will be deleted, (2) the file in discussion will be restored, and (3) the name of the restored file will promptly be moved to that of the deleted file anyway. This is redundant. Remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; let's not get too caught up in complicated discussions like this, per Stifle, in favor of being sticklers to the rules ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 13:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That does not make sense. The deleted file had a fair-use rationale present for use on the Eternal Sunshine album page. The original uploader did not make any error and as such their original upload should be retained. If there was consensus said file should be deleted from Wikipedia, your reupload a few minutes later is a standard WP:G4 case.--N Ø 14:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MaranoFan: this does not address my point about WP:BURO. WP:IAR applies here. regardless of whether you agree or not, i heavily recommend this discussion be paused until the other open discussion regarding the cover art files is closed ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 14:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither WP:BURO or WP:IAR have an application here. The files are identical uploads so readers see the same thing. Accurately retaining the chronologically first upload does not prevent improvement of WP or make any functional difference in what readers see. You have gone ahead and uploaded the same file again(?) so why do you want this discussion to pause?--N Ø 14:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
then what you are looking for is a history merge . again, i recommend deferring this discussion. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 14:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not. I am looking for the first perfectly fine upload with a perfectly good fair-use rationale for the album article to be restored and not much else. Erroneous deletion from the admin who clearly did not see the other discussion should not be taken advantage of to supplant the file uploader!--N Ø 14:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

28 January 2024

Jack Viertel – Speedy deletion overturned; feel free to draftify or send to AfD if warranted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jack Viertel (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) 2. A speedy deletion is otherwise disputed. Hello, A theatre studies professor in conference mentioned the book of Jack Viertel as an important work on contemporary US musical theatre. I went to look him up on Wikipedia and found only a Simple English page, so I "translated" it, thinking it bizarre to have Simple English but not English. English page deleted by administrator Deb, so quickly that I couldn't respond (being in Australia, it happened overnight for me), and request for undeletion or draftication denied; no response so far to Talk page message to Deb. I find that Viertel is widely covered as producer, lyricist, critic, writer: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/theater/jack-viertel-encores.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/11/theater/theater-the-brothers-viertel-a-theatrical-tag-team.html https://deadline.com/2022/01/jack-viertel-broadway-jujamcyn-theaters-retirement-1234908388/ https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-05-05-ca-560-story.html (added subsequently as further Notability), I also notice he was nominated (as producer) for a Best Musical Tony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Award_for_Best_Musical I had nothing to do with previous creation attempts, so I don't know the history, but I think Notability is easy to establish and if people try to look him up (as I did) they should be able to. Obviously the page needs work, but that's not a reason for there not being a page. If the fact that the material was previously posted (the rationale of the speedy deletion criteria) by someone else, perhaps also from Simple English, makes the page impossible, then please propose some other route to a page. People are likely to recreate in good faith because it doesn't make sense to have one in Simple English and not in English. I don't understand the code to notify Deb (when I did it looked like I was trying to delete her page), so please assist with that. I have messaged her on this matter previously, so far without response. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] As I tend to, I've removed invalid arguments to ((DRV links)) here. One of them this time was "xfd_page=don't know". I don't know either. Best practice for G4 deletions is to link the previous deletion discussion in your deletion log comment; "WP:XFD" is insufficient. There's no hint of where it is in WhatLinksHere or the deletion tag, either. On the A7, I... don't know quite what to say. The first of the NYT refs above was in the article; so was this one. A7 is a lower standard than notability. An article with refs showing the subject plausibly meets the GNG cannot be an A7. And that's even if you don't accept either of "His writings on the American musical are widely-read." or "From 2000 to 2020, he was a producer at the Encores! series." as credible claims of significance, which I do. Overturn (the last two revisions only, ie not the G5able ones). —Cryptic 23:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] I get that argument and it's a valid one. Deb (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] I'm leaning Overturn and unsalt here, but I'd really like to hear from Deb first. I don't understand what AfD led to the article being G4'able, and if we can get whichever article that was back for comparison, that would be great. I also note that past sockpuppetry was involved, and I'd like to understand how that played into what just happened here. Thus, I think we need more information about what all was going on that may not have been effectively captured by the log entries. Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Yes, leaving the G4 was a mistake. The salting was because this article has been created three times by newish editors, the first of whom was demonstrably a sock. The article on Simple English Wikipedia, created by Slowking4, is very little improved since then. That is the article User:Sheijiashaojun chose to "translate". I can see that the latter contributor, though a newcomer, has made constructive edits elsewhere, so I'm not labelling them a sock. Deb (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] I am sympathetic to the G5 on the basis of who made it last and where it ultimately came from. I do think a full deletion discussion is appropriate before an article title is salted (except for obvious disruption, of course), but I appreciate your insight and thoughts on what might have been a better path forward. We really don't have a hard and fast rule on what to do if someone transwiki's an article from a disruptive individual on a project on which they are not disinvited, but I don't like to think Simple serves as our Belgium. I'm OK leaving it as G4 was a mistake and draftifying. Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] I realise I'm not very active or very good at the technical side, but FWIW at 1971 edits I don't think I'm quite a newcomer either. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Overturn. The 2017 and 2021 speedy deletions were under G5 - created by a banned sock. This deletion is per A7. If the appellant is a suspected sock, place a one-week page protect while CU investigates. Otherwise, the Repeatedly recreated SALT reason doesn't apply to an article that has been, for the first time, created by a legitimate editor in good standing. The page was nominated per G4, which the deleting admin correctly rejected, as the page has never undergone AfD. Despite being little more than a stub, the article, like its Simple English original, cites seven sources, including substantial coverage from the New York Times. This may ultimately fail AfD, but I'd say it at least credibly indicates importance to avoid A7. Owen× ☎ 00:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] What makes you think she rejected the G4? It's still in her deletion comment. I mean, it might have been accidental, if she used the deletion link in ((db-repost)), changed her mind at the last second, picked A7 from the dropdown, and then didn't remove the pre-filled-out reason. I've made similar mistakes before. But when I have, they've stuck out in my mind; I wouldn't have failed to mention it if questioned about the deletion, even if the gaff was mentioned only tangentially, as here. There's no way I'd have ignored the question for more than a day while continuing to edit elsewhere. —Cryptic 00:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] I assumed her manual choice of A7 reflects her reasoning more than the pre-filled G4. However, the SALT and her stated reason for it makes my assumption questionable. Owen× ☎ 01:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] On question of G5ing it again instead, the version in simple: was openly written by Slowking4, who was behind both of the previous versions here. So there's reason to look askance at a recreation, but not to delete it on that basis if you're not also prepared to block its creator as a sock. —Cryptic 00:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Overturn G4 and Probably Overturn A7 - I haven't seen the deleted article, and would like to see it to see whether it is comparable to the Simple article, in which case it should be restored, because the Simple article makes a credible claim of significance. I don't see a deletion discussion cited to justify the G4, and G4 is only based on a deletion discussion, not some other deletion. This appears to be a case where a good-faith editor has used text that was supplied by Slowking4 and has made it legitimate text. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] It was identical to the version at simple: except it added the sentence "His writings on the American musical are widely-read." to the end of the first paragraph, and didn't have the notability tag Deb added after deleting the version here. —Cryptic 06:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] If "His writings on the American musical are widely-read" is considered a credible claim of notability, then I was wrong; to me, it's subjective at best. That's the only thing I would call a claim of notability. I don't think that being "a producer" on a series is oneDeb (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] He wasn't merely a producer, he was for twenty years the artistic director of a Tony-award winning Broadway series, Encores! while also the vice-president of Jujamcyn Theaters, the third-largest theatre owner on Broadway. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/theater/jack-viertel-encores.html I realise that's not what the article said, but with the article salted, I also don't see how I can work on it. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Sheijiashaojun, the page will be unsalted in a few days, pending the result of this DRV, and you'll be able to work on it again. We still need to decide whether you'll be able to carry on where you left off, or start afresh using the same sources cited. I appreciate your patience, and apologize for you having to go through this. Admins handle dozens such cases every day, and we do occasionally make mistakes. In this case, the deletion was triggered by the use of text originally written by a now-banned sockpuppet. No one is blaming you for that. I hope none of this will dissuade you from your continued contribution here. Owen× ☎ 12:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Owen× No worries, these things can happen. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] New draft please - I don't have a problem with him being included in an article, but the text of this article was only three lines long, and I don't see how it would have passed review. I should probably have draftified. Like the previous two versions, it was very short on detail and didn't make any claim of notability; there was no additional detail. I should, of course, have noticed that there was a version in Simple English Wikipedia - which you can all still look at if you want to know what was in the one I deleted. Deb (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] You appear to be admitting the invalidity of your speedy deletions? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Overturn out-of-process deletion. It is an out of process deletion because the application of the cited criteria is not in any way grounded in the concrete facts concerning the deleted page (A7 very obviously doesn't apply, and there's no information how G4 could apply, and it appears that it doesn't apply). This is not a not-quite-correct speedy deletion where the criterion used doesn't quite apply to the situation, but it's not far from it, here the criteria applied honestly seem random.—Alalch E. 09:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Overturn it's not clear this was a valid speedy. Take it to AfD if needed, but there's sourcing besides that identified by the nom and I think he'd probably pass. Star Mississippi 13:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Overturn G4 and A7, send to draft space (or AFD if someone challenges the move to draft space). Not a lot there but clearly does not qualify for A7 and the deleting admin already stated G4 was included in error. Frank Anchor 14:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Overturn I don't think the deletion was necessarily incorrect, though both of them seem like a stretch - a PROD probably would have passed. If the simple English page is the same as this one I think we can just restore to draft space? SportingFlyer T·C 21:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Undelete, send to AfD if someone wants to. The subject is plausibly notable, and sources that could be argued to meet the GNG have been presented. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Jack Viertel – Speedy deletion overturned; feel free to draftify or send to AfD if warranted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

2. A speedy deletion is otherwise disputed. Hello, A theatre studies professor in conference mentioned the book of Jack Viertel as an important work on contemporary US musical theatre. I went to look him up on Wikipedia and found only a Simple English page, so I "translated" it, thinking it bizarre to have Simple English but not English. English page deleted by administrator Deb, so quickly that I couldn't respond (being in Australia, it happened overnight for me), and request for undeletion or draftication denied; no response so far to Talk page message to Deb.

I find that Viertel is widely covered as producer, lyricist, critic, writer:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/theater/jack-viertel-encores.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/11/theater/theater-the-brothers-viertel-a-theatrical-tag-team.html
https://deadline.com/2022/01/jack-viertel-broadway-jujamcyn-theaters-retirement-1234908388/
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-05-05-ca-560-story.html
(added subsequently as further Notability), I also notice he was nominated (as producer) for a Best Musical Tony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Award_for_Best_Musical

I had nothing to do with previous creation attempts, so I don't know the history, but I think Notability is easy to establish and if people try to look him up (as I did) they should be able to. Obviously the page needs work, but that's not a reason for there not being a page. If the fact that the material was previously posted (the rationale of the speedy deletion criteria) by someone else, perhaps also from Simple English, makes the page impossible, then please propose some other route to a page. People are likely to recreate in good faith because it doesn't make sense to have one in Simple English and not in English.

I don't understand the code to notify Deb (when I did it looked like I was trying to delete her page), so please assist with that. I have messaged her on this matter previously, so far without response.

Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I tend to, I've removed invalid arguments to ((DRV links)) here. One of them this time was "xfd_page=don't know". I don't know either. Best practice for G4 deletions is to link the previous deletion discussion in your deletion log comment; "WP:XFD" is insufficient. There's no hint of where it is in WhatLinksHere or the deletion tag, either.
On the A7, I... don't know quite what to say. The first of the NYT refs above was in the article; so was this one. A7 is a lower standard than notability. An article with refs showing the subject plausibly meets the GNG cannot be an A7. And that's even if you don't accept either of "His writings on the American musical are widely-read." or "From 2000 to 2020, he was a producer at the Encores! series." as credible claims of significance, which I do. Overturn (the last two revisions only, ie not the G5able ones). —Cryptic 23:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I get that argument and it's a valid one. Deb (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm leaning Overturn and unsalt here, but I'd really like to hear from Deb first. I don't understand what AfD led to the article being G4'able, and if we can get whichever article that was back for comparison, that would be great. I also note that past sockpuppetry was involved, and I'd like to understand how that played into what just happened here. Thus, I think we need more information about what all was going on that may not have been effectively captured by the log entries. Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, leaving the G4 was a mistake. The salting was because this article has been created three times by newish editors, the first of whom was demonstrably a sock. The article on Simple English Wikipedia, created by Slowking4, is very little improved since then. That is the article User:Sheijiashaojun chose to "translate". I can see that the latter contributor, though a newcomer, has made constructive edits elsewhere, so I'm not labelling them a sock. Deb (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sympathetic to the G5 on the basis of who made it last and where it ultimately came from. I do think a full deletion discussion is appropriate before an article title is salted (except for obvious disruption, of course), but I appreciate your insight and thoughts on what might have been a better path forward. We really don't have a hard and fast rule on what to do if someone transwiki's an article from a disruptive individual on a project on which they are not disinvited, but I don't like to think Simple serves as our Belgium. I'm OK leaving it as G4 was a mistake and draftifying. Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I realise I'm not very active or very good at the technical side, but FWIW at 1971 edits I don't think I'm quite a newcomer either. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overturn. The 2017 and 2021 speedy deletions were under G5 - created by a banned sock. This deletion is per A7. If the appellant is a suspected sock, place a one-week page protect while CU investigates. Otherwise, the Repeatedly recreated SALT reason doesn't apply to an article that has been, for the first time, created by a legitimate editor in good standing.
The page was nominated per G4, which the deleting admin correctly rejected, as the page has never undergone AfD. Despite being little more than a stub, the article, like its Simple English original, cites seven sources, including substantial coverage from the New York Times. This may ultimately fail AfD, but I'd say it at least credibly indicates importance to avoid A7. Owen× ☎ 00:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- What makes you think she rejected the G4? It's still in her deletion comment. I mean, it might have been accidental, if she used the deletion link in ((db-repost)), changed her mind at the last second, picked A7 from the dropdown, and then didn't remove the pre-filled-out reason. I've made similar mistakes before. But when I have, they've stuck out in my mind; I wouldn't have failed to mention it if questioned about the deletion, even if the gaff was mentioned only tangentially, as here. There's no way I'd have ignored the question for more than a day while continuing to edit elsewhere. —Cryptic 00:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  I assumed her manual choice of A7 reflects her reasoning more than the pre-filled G4. However, the SALT and her stated reason for it makes my assumption questionable. Owen× ☎ 01:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- On question of G5ing it again instead, the version in simple: was openly written by Slowking4, who was behind both of the previous versions here. So there's reason to look askance at a recreation, but not to delete it on that basis if you're not also prepared to block its creator as a sock. —Cryptic 00:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overturn G4 and Probably Overturn A7 - I haven't seen the deleted article, and would like to see it to see whether it is comparable to the Simple article, in which case it should be restored, because the Simple article makes a credible claim of significance. I don't see a deletion discussion cited to justify the G4, and G4 is only based on a deletion discussion, not some other deletion. This appears to be a case where a good-faith editor has used text that was supplied by Slowking4 and has made it legitimate text. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- It was identical to the version at simple: except it added the sentence "His writings on the American musical are widely-read." to the end of the first paragraph, and didn't have the notability tag Deb added after deleting the version here. —Cryptic 06:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If "His writings on the American musical are widely-read" is considered a credible claim of notability, then I was wrong; to me, it's subjective at best. That's the only thing I would call a claim of notability. I don't think that being "a producer" on a series is oneDeb (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He wasn't merely a producer, he was for twenty years the artistic director of a Tony-award winning Broadway series, Encores! while also the vice-president of Jujamcyn Theaters, the third-largest theatre owner on Broadway. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/theater/jack-viertel-encores.html I realise that's not what the article said, but with the article salted, I also don't see how I can work on it. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sheijiashaojun, the page will be unsalted in a few days, pending the result of this DRV, and you'll be able to work on it again. We still need to decide whether you'll be able to carry on where you left off, or start afresh using the same sources cited.

I appreciate your patience, and apologize for you having to go through this. Admins handle dozens such cases every day, and we do occasionally make mistakes. In this case, the deletion was triggered by the use of text originally written by a now-banned sockpuppet. No one is blaming you for that. I hope none of this will dissuade you from your continued contribution here. Owen× ☎ 12:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Owen× No worries, these things can happen. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
New draft please - I don't have a problem with him being included in an article, but the text of this article was only three lines long, and I don't see how it would have passed review. I should probably have draftified. Like the previous two versions, it was very short on detail and didn't make any claim of notability; there was no additional detail. I should, of course, have noticed that there was a version in Simple English Wikipedia - which you can all still look at if you want to know what was in the one I deleted. Deb (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You appear to be admitting the invalidity of your speedy deletions? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overturn out-of-process deletion. It is an out of process deletion because the application of the cited criteria is not in any way grounded in the concrete facts concerning the deleted page (A7 very obviously doesn't apply, and there's no information how G4 could apply, and it appears that it doesn't apply). This is not a not-quite-correct speedy deletion where the criterion used doesn't quite apply to the situation, but it's not far from it, here the criteria applied honestly seem random.—Alalch E. 09:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overturn it's not clear this was a valid speedy. Take it to AfD if needed, but there's sourcing besides that identified by the nom and I think he'd probably pass. Star Mississippi 13:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overturn G4 and A7, send to draft space (or AFD if someone challenges the move to draft space). Not a lot there but clearly does not qualify for A7 and the deleting admin already stated G4 was included in error. Frank Anchor 14:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overturn I don't think the deletion was necessarily incorrect, though both of them seem like a stretch - a PROD probably would have passed. If the simple English page is the same as this one I think we can just restore to draft space? SportingFlyer T·C 21:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Undelete, send to AfD if someone wants to. The subject is plausibly notable, and sources that could be argued to meet the GNG have been presented. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Gaami – G11 speedy deletion overturned and article transferred to AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaami. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gaami (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) The film is notable, has reliable citations and has completed filming phase. It is ready to be released. It was speedily deleted with incorrect reason. The first look of the film was released recently. Apart from 4 sources, I added a link to IMDb page as well. The said article was at GAAMI for a while which also was deleted. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Sources - https://telugu.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/tollywood-news-vishwaksen-as-aghora-in-gaami-movie-first-look-121706443280206.html https://www.eenadu.net/telugu-news/movies/vishwak-sen-new-movie-first-look-poster-release/0205/124018396 https://tracktollywood.com/vishwak-sen-as-aghora-in-gaami-cast-and-crew-details/ https://www.123telugu.com/mnews/gaami-first-look-vishwaksen-looks-stunning-as-aghora.html https://www.greatandhra.com/movies/news/gaami-1st-look-vishwak-sen-startles-as-an-aghora-135302 https://www.m9.news/movienews/vishwak-sens-gaami-very-different-attempt/ https://10tv.in/telugu-news/movies/vishwak-sen-first-look-poster-released-from-gaami-movie-778978.html Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] IMDB is not RS, the given references appear to be press releases, and the film hasn't even been released yet, so not sure why it's notable. Also, no plot summary. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] The film isn't released yet. In that case, Tillu Square is also an upcoming film. Aren't upcoming films if notable enough can be created on Wikipedia? Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] I mentioned the plot in the lead section briefly. It is sourced. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Long awaited - https://www.123telugu.com/mnews/vishwak-sens-long-delayed-film-aiming-for-summer-release.html Filming complete - https://ntvtelugu.com/news/gaami-do-you-know-the-run-time-of-vishwak-sens-gaami-480507.html, https://www.cinemaexpress.com/telugu/news/2023/may/02/its-a-wrap-for-gaami-42922.html Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thewikizoomer, I assume you mean ...Karthik Sabareesh. He has a rare human condition and goes into uncharted territory to find a cure to it. Why is the producer in the plot? I assumed you were commenting on his health Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Endorse. Thewikizoomer has a history of disruptive editing, and has been previously blocked under 3RR for edit-warring. Whenever they are warned about their disruptive behaviour, they blank their User Talk page with the notice "This user has left editing on Wikipedia" or suchlike. This happened multiple times. As for this article, The user created it as a draft today at 10:48 UTC, and moved it to mainspace four minutes later. Three minutes after that, it was deleted by Jimfbleak under CSD:G11. Rather than discuss the issue with the admin, at 12:34, Thewikizoomer recreated the page. At 12:48, they renamed the page from Gaami to GAAMI, and tagged the redirect for speedy deletion under CSD:G7. Responding to the request, GB fan deleted the Gaami page under G7. But the drama continued. At 13:23, Thewikizoomer replaced their User Talk page with the message, "USER LEFT WIKI EDITING." A minute later, Wikishovel correctly moved the article back to its standard spelling - Gaami. At 13:41, Jimfbleak deleted the page, yet again, under G11. Thewikizoomer then left a message on Jimfbleak's Talk page, and four minutes later, opened this DRV case. I think the problem here goes beyond just the disputed article or questions of notability. The type of disruptive editing exhibited by the appellant is incompatible with the project. And the persistent pattern of blanking warnings on their Talk page, and the belligerent reaction to attempts to reason with them, with announcements that they are "leaving wiki editing", makes it clear this user will not collaborate with others. As a short-term remedy, I suggest we remove their Extended Confirmed status, which would force them to go through AfC, and prevent them from doing disruptive page moves. As for the article, I would allow recreation by any editor unrelated to the appellant. Owen× ☎ 15:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Endorse - I have not seen the deleted article, but I know to trust the judgment of User:Jimfbleak over that of an editor who has tried to game the titles by changing the capitalization. A good-faith editor may create a draft, knowing that the film is only notable either after it is reviewed or if production itself is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] This was poorly written (the tracktollywood ref makes it clear that the "He" Jimfbleak quotes from the article above is supposed to be the main character of the movie, who isn't mentioned in the article except in the cast section), and it may well not be notable, but I'm struggling to see how it was exclusively promotional at the time of either G11. Or promotional at all, unless you're counting the refs, some of which are, yes, entirely content-free hype. The author's behavior is immaterial, too, unless someone cares to credibly accuse them of UPE or evading a block or ban. And, Robert, there's no reason to think the name was gamed - it wasn't created at different titles, and certainly not to evade salting; it was placed in mainspace a total of two times, both at Gaami, whence it was briefly moved to a different title. I think articles like this should be speedyable. They provide essentially no information and amount to a request for someone else to write an article. But the community hasn't authorized individual admins to do that on their own recognizance. The first deleted version even used to be speedyable, under the old wording of A1 (very short article with little or no context), but that's been deliberately made a lot stricter. The right call here was to move the page back to draft; failing that, the only options are to futilely prod it or send it to AFD. —Cryptic 19:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] That's a good point. The case for G11 was marginal. The question is, what do we do with it now? We could send it for seven days through the AfD mill, which will likely result in the same outcome, except with the added G4 protection. Or we could invoke a form of wiki-certiorari, and adjudicate the matter here as if it were an AfD. I went ahead and temp-undeleted the article, so that Robert and other non-admins can see the content and history, and weigh in on the notability issue itself. Owen× ☎ 20:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] DRV is not AfD. I don't really agree with the G11, either - it's not unambiguous. So the answer is treat like a contested PROD and send to AfD, or as another possibility, remove extended confirmed AND send to draft? Is that possible? SportingFlyer T·C 22:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] DRV is not AfD round two. But there was no round one, so I don't think we'll be violating any wiki-tenet by treating this review as an AfD. Not the most orthodox way of handling things, but perhaps the most practical. Sure, we can remove EC rights and send back to draft, but this only makes sense if someone is prepared to work on the page. The appellant's fickle editing history doesn't inspire confidence such draftification will produce anything other than edit-wars. The article will likely be reacreated anyway once the film is released and covered by notable critics. I see nothing in the current history worth preserving, and no rush to create it before notable coverage appears. Owen× ☎ 23:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Or we can just send to AfD and we'll see if the editor's conduct wins over hearts and minds of anyone who might be interested in making an article that at least arguably passes WP:NFF within a week. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] I'm fine with that too. Seems a bit like a waste of time, but so is arguing about it here. If consensus is trending towards sending to AfD, count me in. Owen× ☎ 01:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Endorse A7 - Saying that an unreleased film is about to exist does not make it notable. Any G11 was a harmless mistake by the deleting admin. It isn't advertising or promotion, but it doesn't make a credible claim of significance. The appellant may create a draft. I would advise the appellant to leave it alone and let someone who isn't their own enemy create a draft when the film is reviewed, but I see that the appellant is not in the habit of listening to advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] CSD:A7 specifically does not apply to movies: This criterion applies only to articles about the listed subjects; in particular, it does not apply to articles about albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), products, books, films, TV programs, software, or other creative works (emphasis mine). Owen× ☎ 13:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Overturn and start an AfD. A7 doesn't work on films, and the content is not exclusively promotional for G11. In a slightly different alternate universe, it would have been ideal if this had been draftified--under a hypothesis that the creator would not move it back--but in an alternate timeline of this universe, they would have moved it back, most likely, similarly to how they've been recreating, and then an AfD would be in order. So it could be that there is no way to avoid an AfD and there is no need to try very hard to avoid an AfD.—Alalch E. 14:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Overturn Speedy and send to AFD the appellant makes a claim to significance above such that A7 (or A9) does not apply. This is borderline G11 but the tone can be addressed via cleanup rather than deletion if there is desire to keep this article. I would vote delete or draftify on an AFD of the article in this condition, but I do not think speedy delete is the right option here. Frank Anchor 19:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Send to AfD Best thing we can do here - it's not a perfect article by any means but treating the speedy like a contested PROD makes the most sense to me. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Overturn and send to AfD. I entirely agree with Cryptic and OwenX in that the article creator has engaged in problematic behaviour (including a recent 3RR block). Further, this article is not something that will survive AfD, and the references are basically press-releases and advertorial-like pieces. However, I don't believe that the latest version of the article is unsalvageably and overtly promotional for G11 to apply. Other editors have cited A7, which explicitly says that films doesn't apply. A9 also clearly doesn't apply because this is (obviously) not a musical recording. I think overturning the CSD is probably futile because it would very likely be deleted or draftified anyway. On another note, my experience in general from past NPP work (as someone who isn't really conservative when it comes to nominating articles for G11) is that this deleting admin is very liberal in accepting G11 deletion requests and tends to apply it broadly to articles that won't survive AfD or are written by editors that have exhibited problematic conduct. As such, I understand where the admin is coming from, but still struggle to see how any CSD criteria apply here- so, overturn. VickKiang (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Gaami – G11 speedy deletion overturned and article transferred to AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaami. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The film is notable, has reliable citations and has completed filming phase. It is ready to be released. It was speedily deleted with incorrect reason. The first look of the film was released recently. Apart from 4 sources, I added a link to IMDb page as well. The said article was at GAAMI for a while which also was deleted. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources -

https://telugu.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/tollywood-news-vishwaksen-as-aghora-in-gaami-movie-first-look-121706443280206.html

https://www.eenadu.net/telugu-news/movies/vishwak-sen-new-movie-first-look-poster-release/0205/124018396

https://tracktollywood.com/vishwak-sen-as-aghora-in-gaami-cast-and-crew-details/

https://www.123telugu.com/mnews/gaami-first-look-vishwaksen-looks-stunning-as-aghora.html

https://www.greatandhra.com/movies/news/gaami-1st-look-vishwak-sen-startles-as-an-aghora-135302

https://www.m9.news/movienews/vishwak-sens-gaami-very-different-attempt/

https://10tv.in/telugu-news/movies/vishwak-sen-first-look-poster-released-from-gaami-movie-778978.html Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMDB is not RS, the given references appear to be press releases, and the film hasn't even been released yet, so not sure why it's notable. Also, no plot summary. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The film isn't released yet. In that case, Tillu Square is also an upcoming film. Aren't upcoming films if notable enough can be created on Wikipedia? Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mentioned the plot in the lead section briefly. It is sourced. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long awaited - https://www.123telugu.com/mnews/vishwak-sens-long-delayed-film-aiming-for-summer-release.html

Filming complete - https://ntvtelugu.com/news/gaami-do-you-know-the-run-time-of-vishwak-sens-gaami-480507.html, https://www.cinemaexpress.com/telugu/news/2023/may/02/its-a-wrap-for-gaami-42922.html Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thewikizoomer, I assume you mean ...Karthik Sabareesh. He has a rare human condition and goes into uncharted territory to find a cure to it. Why is the producer in the plot? I assumed you were commenting on his health Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Endorse. Thewikizoomer has a history of disruptive editing, and has been previously blocked under 3RR for edit-warring. Whenever they are warned about their disruptive behaviour, they blank their User Talk page with the notice "This user has left editing on Wikipedia" or suchlike. This happened multiple times.

As for this article, The user created it as a draft today at 10:48 UTC, and moved it to mainspace four minutes later. Three minutes after that, it was deleted by Jimfbleak under CSD:G11. Rather than discuss the issue with the admin, at 12:34, Thewikizoomer recreated the page. At 12:48, they renamed the page from Gaami to GAAMI, and tagged the redirect for speedy deletion under CSD:G7. Responding to the request, GB fan deleted the Gaami page under G7.

But the drama continued. At 13:23, Thewikizoomer replaced their User Talk page with the message, "USER LEFT WIKI EDITING." A minute later, Wikishovel correctly moved the article back to its standard spelling - Gaami. At 13:41, Jimfbleak deleted the page, yet again, under G11. Thewikizoomer then left a message on Jimfbleak's Talk page, and four minutes later, opened this DRV case.

I think the problem here goes beyond just the disputed article or questions of notability. The type of disruptive editing exhibited by the appellant is incompatible with the project. And the persistent pattern of blanking warnings on their Talk page, and the belligerent reaction to attempts to reason with them, with announcements that they are "leaving wiki editing", makes it clear this user will not collaborate with others. As a short-term remedy, I suggest we remove their Extended Confirmed status, which would force them to go through AfC, and prevent them from doing disruptive page moves. As for the article, I would allow recreation by any editor unrelated to the appellant. Owen× ☎ 15:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Endorse - I have not seen the deleted article, but I know to trust the judgment of User:Jimfbleak over that of an editor who has tried to game the titles by changing the capitalization. A good-faith editor may create a draft, knowing that the film is only notable either after it is reviewed or if production itself is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was poorly written (the tracktollywood ref makes it clear that the "He" Jimfbleak quotes from the article above is supposed to be the main character of the movie, who isn't mentioned in the article except in the cast section), and it may well not be notable, but I'm struggling to see how it was exclusively promotional at the time of either G11. Or promotional at all, unless you're counting the refs, some of which are, yes, entirely content-free hype. The author's behavior is immaterial, too, unless someone cares to credibly accuse them of UPE or evading a block or ban. And, Robert, there's no reason to think the name was gamed - it wasn't created at different titles, and certainly not to evade salting; it was placed in mainspace a total of two times, both at Gaami, whence it was briefly moved to a different title.
I think articles like this should be speedyable. They provide essentially no information and amount to a request for someone else to write an article. But the community hasn't authorized individual admins to do that on their own recognizance. The first deleted version even used to be speedyable, under the old wording of A1 (very short article with little or no context), but that's been deliberately made a lot stricter. The right call here was to move the page back to draft; failing that, the only options are to futilely prod it or send it to AFD. —Cryptic 19:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a good point. The case for G11 was marginal. The question is, what do we do with it now? We could send it for seven days through the AfD mill, which will likely result in the same outcome, except with the added G4 protection. Or we could invoke a form of wiki-certiorari, and adjudicate the matter here as if it were an AfD. I went ahead and temp-undeleted the article, so that Robert and other non-admins can see the content and history, and weigh in on the notability issue itself. Owen× ☎ 20:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DRV is not AfD. I don't really agree with the G11, either - it's not unambiguous. So the answer is treat like a contested PROD and send to AfD, or as another possibility, remove extended confirmed AND send to draft? Is that possible? SportingFlyer T·C 22:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DRV is not AfD round two. But there was no round one, so I don't think we'll be violating any wiki-tenet by treating this review as an AfD. Not the most orthodox way of handling things, but perhaps the most practical. Sure, we can remove EC rights and send back to draft, but this only makes sense if someone is prepared to work on the page. The appellant's fickle editing history doesn't inspire confidence such draftification will produce anything other than edit-wars. The article will likely be reacreated anyway once the film is released and covered by notable critics. I see nothing in the current history worth preserving, and no rush to create it before notable coverage appears. Owen× ☎ 23:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or we can just send to AfD and we'll see if the editor's conduct wins over hearts and minds of anyone who might be interested in making an article that at least arguably passes WP:NFF within a week. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm fine with that too. Seems a bit like a waste of time, but so is arguing about it here. If consensus is trending towards sending to AfD, count me in. Owen× ☎ 01:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse A7 - Saying that an unreleased film is about to exist does not make it notable. Any G11 was a harmless mistake by the deleting admin. It isn't advertising or promotion, but it doesn't make a credible claim of significance. The appellant may create a draft. I would advise the appellant to leave it alone and let someone who isn't their own enemy create a draft when the film is reviewed, but I see that the appellant is not in the habit of listening to advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CSD:A7 specifically does not apply to movies: This criterion applies only to articles about the listed subjects; in particular, it does not apply to articles about albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), products, books, films, TV programs, software, or other creative works (emphasis mine). Owen× ☎ 13:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overturn and start an AfD. A7 doesn't work on films, and the content is not exclusively promotional for G11. In a slightly different alternate universe, it would have been ideal if this had been draftified--under a hypothesis that the creator would not move it back--but in an alternate timeline of this universe, they would have moved it back, most likely, similarly to how they've been recreating, and then an AfD would be in order. So it could be that there is no way to avoid an AfD and there is no need to try very hard to avoid an AfD.—Alalch E. 14:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overturn Speedy and send to AFD the appellant makes a claim to significance above such that A7 (or A9) does not apply. This is borderline G11 but the tone can be addressed via cleanup rather than deletion if there is desire to keep this article. I would vote delete or draftify on an AFD of the article in this condition, but I do not think speedy delete is the right option here. Frank Anchor 19:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Send to AfD Best thing we can do here - it's not a perfect article by any means but treating the speedy like a contested PROD makes the most sense to me. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overturn and send to AfD. I entirely agree with Cryptic and OwenX in that the article creator has engaged in problematic behaviour (including a recent 3RR block). Further, this article is not something that will survive AfD, and the references are basically press-releases and advertorial-like pieces. However, I don't believe that the latest version of the article is unsalvageably and overtly promotional for G11 to apply. Other editors have cited A7, which explicitly says that films doesn't apply. A9 also clearly doesn't apply because this is (obviously) not a musical recording. I think overturning the CSD is probably futile because it would very likely be deleted or draftified anyway. On another note, my experience in general from past NPP work (as someone who isn't really conservative when it comes to nominating articles for G11) is that this deleting admin is very liberal in accepting G11 deletion requests and tends to apply it broadly to articles that won't survive AfD or are written by editors that have exhibited problematic conduct. As such, I understand where the admin is coming from, but still struggle to see how any CSD criteria apply here- so, overturn. VickKiang (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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