It's funny how the passing of a dear colleague cuts right to the core of why I participated here in the first place and reminds me of the good inherent in our project. I was very angry when I left and I'm still bitter about it but in a more intellectual rather than emotional way. I feel that I have to do something in the memory of DGG but not if this will stir up controversy. Hence my question. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you around, and I certainly welcome you back. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I only just saw this. Of course you are welcome to became active again, or as active as you want to be, any time you like. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I for one would be glad to see you back. Like Newyorkbrad, I apologize for not seeing this a month ago. BilledMammal (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sure, come back on if you want to! lettherebedarklight晚安 00:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Air Milford. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ThumperOP (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that you were the admin who handled the deletion of an article at AfD, and I have just started an article on that subject... in draft ATM. I was unable to see the previous deleted version so I am wondering if you can tell me if this version is too similar. I will continue to work on the article if you determine I should give it a go. Thank you for your time. Lightburst (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not similar. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have written a version of Dance with the Devil (Immortal Technique song), the article which you redirected and protected back in 2018. The draft I wrote is currently in a deletion review. I was wondering if it would be possible for you to remove the protection template from the page, as I have rewritten the article with more reliable sources, including several which particularly cover on the song, that indicate the song's notability. I would appreciate it if you could consider it. Thank you. MC-123 (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 February 2020, you closed the second AfD discussion on Juan Branco, with the closing comment "The result was keep. I'd suggest we save protection unless the improved article is shown to be unstable but happy for a ping on my talk if further steps are required". Until the beginning of May 2023, the article remainded rather stable, despite some tentatives by sockpuppets which were blocked by Bbb23, Ponyo, RickinBaltimore, and NinjaRobotPirate.

Since then, user Imagritte started to widely expand the article, passing from 22,254 to 100,975 bytes. The resulting article is an extremely detailed curriculum vitae, with the opinions of the subject on anything presented with details. The time devoted by this user to expand this article suggests that this editor is a new sockpuppet of Juan Branco. The fact that the style differs from the style of the preceding socks is not conclusing against this hypothesis, since it is sure that Juan Branco is clever.

I tried, without success, to stop this disruptive editing by opening an RfC.

IMO, we must restore the previous stable version, enforce the protection of the article and/or block Imagritte.

Thanks for considering this issue. D.Lazard (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have had an RFC then there is little for an admin to do unless we are dealing with a sock. A 3 year old AFD has relatively little bearing on an article today so I guess your best option is WP:DR Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of making edits to the article so I could make a solid Keep argument. Would you consider re-opening the nomination? Cielquiparle (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(It turns out their pronouns weren't even correct in the article! Which clearly shows that no one had done enough WP:BEFORE – regardless of whether they were !voting to keep or delete.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you make the argument here and I'll tell you if it was likely to sway the outcome? Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I was in the middle of editing the article. Usually I like to do the research and add to the article before deciding which way to !vote. It's sort of hard to do with the article now deleted. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I can help you then. You already said you were voting keep so I'd hope you had some sense of what the reason for that vote would have been. The discussion was way past closing so there is no procedural issue with my closing it when I did. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle: I did plenty of "before", and spent weeks trying to clean the article before nominating it for deletion. I also searched for reliable sources to support notability using their current name, and their "dead name". I reported the multitude of socks who had edited this article, and who were also unable to find enough sources to support notability. As Spartaz suggested, was their some argument or reliable source that was somehow missed? Magnolia677 (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please draftify this article. It did not receive the attention by longterm experienced editors that it deserves. I see 29 sources on NewsBank. It may yet make the cut. I would be happy to see what I could do to improve this at User:Ɱ/Dorian Rhea Debussy. ɱ (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comment above by Magnolia677 Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at that. My comment and request still stand. ɱ (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:USERFYAFD has information about how to request deleted content, should you want it for using in your sandbox. As mentioned there, "there is also a list of administrators who say that they are willing to provide deleted content on an editor's request." That page of editors, who likely have the content that both you and @Cielquiparle are wanting, can be provided by one of those administrators.

@Spartaz made their ruling based on the information provided in the AfD discussion, so there's not much to be done there. But, Wikipedia:REFUND also has a quick link for you to request an undeletion into your draftspace/sandbox, if you want a deleted article for that or a similarly useful purpose. @Asilvering, who is not on the page, had recommended just stubbing the deleted article per Wikipedia:Stub, and that might be worth mentioning in your request on the Wikipedia:REFUND request.

Best of luck to you, @Ɱ and @Cielquiparle, and feel free to post for help in the Women in Red page. (I was also super frustrating with the wrong pronoun issue!!!!! Def an issue per Wikipedia:GENDERIDENTITY)

Pumpkinspyce (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured the request was a complete crapshoot once I read @Spartaz:'s ridiculous authoritarian comment of "Why don't you make the argument here and I'll tell you if it was likely to sway the outcome?". Fuck that. Admins need to get demerits towards removing their admin powers. This alone might not be enough but it should count towards it. ɱ (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So next time I should blow someone off then? Offering to add an extra argument into my thinking is hardly authoritarian. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pumpkinspyce, to be clear, I didn't recommend creating a stub in the event that the AfD was closed as delete. I know it's a frustrating outcome for those of you who were working on the article, but Debussy is still pretty early-career, so some more sources might turn up in the next few years and asking for a draft refund might make more sense then. -- asilvering (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Abdul Monem Limited. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Hello, I opened a deletion review to request a draft copy so that I can work on it further. - Indefensible (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impatient, but if you would rather wait a week for a DRV as opposed to letting me look at the refund then so be it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Spartaz. I'd like to request for the review of the recently-deleted article (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Odrek_Rwabwogo) that you deleted just recently. Indeed you state COI as a major factor and yes, you have a right too. I decided to be honest enough to declare COI because last year, I attended a two-day convention where he spoke and I was really impressed (fanboyed if you may) by his ideas of Uganda's future. I tried searching on DuckDuckGo but I discovered he wasn't on Wikipedia; which inspired me to create an article. All the blubbering aside, I thought declaring the COI would also help notify other experienced editors to join in and refine the article and make it better. Is there anything we can do rather than deleting it entirely? You can guide me and take out sources and parts you see as lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niitwe (talk • contribs) 12:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its really down to the sources. The COI can blind you to their weaknesses and really you have to wait for the sourcing to develop. If it doesn’t then we probably won’t have an article but if it does its relatively trivial to bring back the article. I could put the deleted article into draft but it couldn’t come back until you had new sources that are better than what we have here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the sources and I agree with the draft cause of action. We can be working together as well as other editors over time.

In fact, I see more sources as time goes by. Is this a credible source? [1]https://www.cnbcafrica.com/media/6321556157112/ Niitwe (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its an interview so doesn’t count as a primary source. Any source by him not about him will not be counted to notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood! I'm starting to get picture Niitwe (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you see fit, I request that you move the article to a draft and we'll work on it for the month(s) to come. Kind regards Niitwe (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, there were sources in the article already from major Ugandan publications which suggested GNG had been met. I don't know why additional sources would need to be shown in order to draftify the article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you saw this was a TNT job so I have no problems with you restarting this from scratch or giving you the draft if you want to rewrite it completely. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SportingFlyer!

@Spartaz There's a draft in this sandbox User:Alyo/sandbox/Odrek Rwabwogo. Maybe you can paste the draft here so that it gets a new start. Niitwe (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original article is in drafts. I blanked it and coped across the sources.enjoy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Niitwe (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see Post Alley Pizza has been deleted, unfortunately. Do you mind restoring the article and talk page in the draft space, please? Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an established user--I can edit extended confirmation protection pages. I regularly edit Judicial appointment history for United States federal courts. I support deleting the article, but could you please draftify the article so once Garnett likely gets confirmed? I can then make the draft an article and update the judicial appointment history page. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second draftify-ing said article, please. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its done Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How did this get deleted when there was only 1 (weak) delete/draftify vote, 5 keeps, and 1 (weak) draftify? At the very least should have been moved to draft, please restore it per your comment. - Indefensible (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its done in draft Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm sure it was frustrating to read through the long discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oregon State University College of Liberal Arts. I read through it multiples times and considered jumping back in after my !vote, but didn't feel it would help the situation given the progression of the discussion. However, I didn't expect to be accused of bad faith: The amount of bad faith....

Please have respect for the work the rest of us are doing as well. If you're feeling frustrated about the close, rest assured, I have investigated (multiple times because of how off-course that discussion went), the subject very clearly meets the GNG.

While I'm sure it was made in good faith, the claim that this subject didn't meet notability guidelines was a bit beyond the pale. While I'm sure they have the best of intents around this subject area, given the intense scrutiny the nominator paid to multiple !votes, including my own, I am not surprised most folks didn't stay around to clarify a broader set of policy-based arguments that closers like yourself rely on, especially given that the consensus was becoming pretty clear relatively quickly.

But the fact that we didn't jump back into the discussion doesn't mean we were acting in bad faith. Accusations of bad faith like the one in that close are detrimental to many editors. Some editors are able to easily brush them off, but I truly do feel hurt by some, and I do know I am not alone in sometimes feeling hurt by accusations of bad faith. It's not pleasant for some of us.

I ask you to be a little more careful with such accusations in the future.

Thanks, and all the best. —siroχo 12:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, if users are questioning the motivations of other editors in a discussion then that contribution never adds more light then heat. Invariably such a comment degrades the quality of the discussion and discourages passing editors from joining the conversation leading to a less useful consensus. So if all the same with you I assume the amount of good faith in a discussion that the participants have offered to people they disagree with. That makes my close fair comment and I don't think I'm doing the community a service if I'm not flagging unhelpful behaviours when I close a discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good service to flag unhelpful behaviors, and I hope I didn't imply otherwise. I do not believe it's appropriate or necessary to ascribe bad faith motives to the behaviors you observe. As I hope I've made clear, I agree with you, I don't think that discussion went well either, that's specifically why I stayed out of it as it progressed. Guidance from closing or relisting admins can be quite valuable in such cases. The good news here, I hope, is that by not using accusations of bad faith in such guidance, it's going to be more effective as people will be less likely to feel attacked—it will keep the focus on the behavior and not the motive or person. So my request that you assume good faith doesn't undercut your goal here. —siroχo 18:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we are in the same ballpark here but I hope you will understand if I'm less idealistic than you when it comes to assuming the best of people. I run a team of 60+ opinionated people spread over 3 locations in two countries. I have learned painfully over the last couple of years that not being clear about poor behaviour and expectations leads to worse outcomes. I was careful not to name names but hopefully you can see how I find myself in the mindset to be very clear about poor conduct. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do think I understand where you are coming from. I don't want to take a way a tool of yours. I hope you can see how I was affected, and my comments might help hone that tool a bit, at least. Thanks for your hard work. —siroχo 20:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please say a bit more about your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oregon State University College of Liberal Arts‎? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's missing in my close? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your close of "Keep" doesn't seem to align with your rationale, particularly the statement that "one side isn't arguing from a policy position but [has] a clear super majority." "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." ElKevbo (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was no delete consensus and no consensus doesn't reflect the sheer weight of the votes. Functionally there is no difference between keep and NC but I went keep to reflect the strong non-policy based supermajority. It's not a vote but you can't delete on a tiny majority of the votes when so many keep voters are experienced established users. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that line of reasoning directly contradicts WP:CLOSEAFD - I'll be asking for a review of this close. ElKevbo (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oregon State University College of Liberal Arts. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ElKevbo (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to check if you made an error when you said the result was delete. I did not see a consensus to delete the article at the discussion. CT55555(talk) 01:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree, there was no consensus whatsoever for deletion here. Only one editor in the discussion !voted for deletion or a comparable outcome. Looks a lot like WP:SUPERVOTE to me. Looks like the close was accidentally muddled with the closer’s own opinions. What was your reasoning for this close? Actualcpscm (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC); edited 07:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The keep arguments were:

A sock puppet with a nonsensical vote:- discarded

An IP keep vote that cites the subject is Interesting and acknowledges the sourcing is weak and says we should make allowances for the period. :- very weak argument and not much weight

Indefensible says we should trust the sources exist and give the benefit of the doubt :- this is implicit acknowledgement that the sourcing isn't good enough and the reasons for keeping are not policy based

NY Guru says keep per above :- but none of the votes at this point are policy based and this doesn't advance a policy keep vote.

CT55555 makes an argument of inheritance because he was associated with historical events, provides some LOCAL sourcing and says the sourcing needs improving. :- this isn't a strong policy based argument.

On the other side:

The nom asserts the article fails GNG :- not specific about how

Piotrus says to delete or remove from mainspace. Arguments based on source analysis, discussion of relative policy.:- decent policy based argument by an experienced and balanced and contributor

Visvia says to remove from mainspace or delete. Source analysis and evaluation and policy basis. Explains weaknesses in sources proved and that they are short of requirements. Evaluates the sources as lacking information to flesh out an encyclopedia article.

Overall that leaves us a keep vote acknowledging the sourcing is short, a couple of of low to zero policy assertions and CT55555s vote that honestly isn't a ringing endorsement of the sourcing. Strict numbers we have 3 votes to take it out of mainspace of which 2 are probably the strongest arguments in terms of policy engagement. Overall the best votes are to get the article out of mainspace and that's where I ended up. As it stands the article is now in draft and can be reviewed when the sourcing improves.

I don't know how you get a keep conclusion or even NC unless we just decide that we count votes without assigning any policy based weight to them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's appropriate to consider better arguments as stronger !votes than those that don't express well-reasoned arguments, but I don't think it's fair or appropriate to disregard the latter entirely. Discussions aren't votes, but if lots of people disagree with something and forego expressing their reasoning, I don't think it's fair to say that there is a consensus for the other option. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its a question of judgement and weighting. I don’t believe that its wrong to give the stronger votes primacy when the keep arguments are very weak. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Stronger votes". Plural? There was one delete !vote and the person who wrote it described it as "weak". I disagree with the use of both words "(strong" and "votes").

I feel like asking for deletion review is the only path I can take. I know that will likely feel bad for you, so I'm sorry about the unavoidable tension that will create. CT55555(talk) 22:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note your dislike of templates, so writing in normal English to say that I did ask for review here. CT55555(talk) 22:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your reasoning. The closer does not have to have >50% to delete; the quality of the !votes matters.

I have requested to get the article temporarily restored to see the final ref status but my default is "don't overturn" unless they establish notability.

Right or sometimes wrong, thanks for what you do and for making the tough calls.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw that you relisted this AFD discussion, but there was a broad consensus to Keep at that time. A source analysis would be nice, but it appears that you overlooked the consensus there was in that discussion, and I don't think a relist is the right place to express an opinion within the discussion. On the other hand, I'm sure you had good reasons; could you explain them here? Actualcpscm (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reached out to you above about your relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mojo (programming language). I have some further cases that need clarification, in my opinion:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_The_Trombonist – Closed as delete "per convincing analysis of the claimed sources". This was not a discussion with clear consensus, in my opinion. More importantly, this close clearly expresses your own opinion on the matter of consensus, which creates the impression of a WP:SUPERVOTE. The arguments provided by Keep !voters were clearly not insubstantial enough to be disregarded in this way.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Margaret_Garnett – What do you mean by "assertive votes", and why can they be disregarded? Why should the !votes of new users be disregarded, especially when they are substantially reasonable, like that expressed by Kalethan?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cityfields – This is a well-reasoned close, but it again bypasses the actual discussion taking place. I would agree with your reasoning, but to me, that looks like an argument or !vote in the discussion, not an appropriate close.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Odrek_Rwabwogo – This just directly contradicts the discussion preceding it. No mention of TNT anywhere in the discussion. Even if all Keep !votes by involved editors are disregarded (I'm not aware of that being appropriate), there's no consensus for deletion.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cody_Daigle-Orians – Plenty of experienced users expressed appropriately-reasoned Delete !votes; even disregarding contributions from IPs completely, which is iffy, there was no consensus for keeping here.

Please elaborate on your reasoning for these closes. As I mentioned before, I'm sure your reasoning is sound, but I'd like to hear it.

Thanks a lot for your time! Happy editing :) Actualcpscm (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to go through all of my contributions then that looks a bit like harassment and will have to wait until I have time to go through all of that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going through all your contributions, I just checked some of the more recent AfD closes. WP:ADMINACCT sets out that admins should expect occasional scrutiny for the use of their tools, and this request is well within the bounds of that policy and reasonability in general.

I think I've been quite polite, too, so I don't appreciate the implication that I'm reaching out in bad faith.

I understand that it'll take some time to review these discussions and closes; if I made you feel like I expected you to respond immediately, that was not my intention. Thanks again for your time! Actualcpscm (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to see the discussion two threads up, but thought I'd chime in here re: Paul the Trombonist as I also have a history there. Pre relist we discussed it at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_The_Trombonist and User_talk:Joyous!#Paul_the_Trombonist. If this goes back somewhere for further discussion - I don't have an opinion on it myself as I never dug into the sourcing as the subject wasn't interesting -- it's going to need some ground rules as there's clearly some off site discussion. Not worthy of an SPI, but definitely need more input from established editors. Star Mississippi 01:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, the basis of my questions above isn‘t that I necessarily disagree with the outcomes; It‘s more so that the closes seem to inaccurately reflect the discussion and consensus of the AfD. What I personally believe about the article subjects‘ notability is not really part of this. Actualcpscm (talk) 07:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This could be none of my business but I wanted to add that Spartaz is one of few admins to take on closing very divided discussions. If you look through a lot of AFDs, you'll see that there are some admins who primarily close discussions that have unanimous opinions expressed by participants and those closures are really low-hanging fruit that are very straight-forward and uncomplicated. I haven't examined these specific AFDs so I don't know if I would have closed them in the same way that Spartaz did but I'm grateful to him for spending his time parsing through some of the more contentious discussions which tend to be the closures that are most likely to be contested. Some of these AFDs are no-win situations where no one will be happy with the result. It's really not a fun part of the job but it's necessary and I'm grateful at his willingness to do so.

But your request for an explanation is a legitimate one and I hope when Spartaz has time he can respond. But I know, for me, it sometimes take a while to get to responding to talk page messages that require a substantial and thoughtful reply. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that Spartaz restored Draft:Odrek Rwabwogo and moved it to Draft space which, in its way, accomodates those editors who want to continue to work on improving this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that closing AfDs can be stressful and difficult, and I agree that those editors who do close highly controversial discussions do a very valuable job. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 07:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to be honest here. I don’t think you have a great deal of experience in assessing consensus in deletion discussions and seem to take arguments at face value and give every opinion expressed equal value. That’s not how it works and per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. I frequently close difficult discussions where pure vote counting leads to conclusions that don’t ascribe to policy and this can cause controversy. When I close I always close according to the relevant policy or guideline, which are not uniform for every article. Some criteria are more strict then the GNG and some are less strict. For me, I always work out the guideline first and work back from there. I always give more weight to arguments that explain how the content relates to policy rather than bare assertions that have limited weight as its impossible to know if the voter even knew the policy when they made their vote. See WP:JUSTAVOTE.

So, for Garrett, the policy is WP:JUDGE which is clear that being a nominee is not sufficient. GNG may apply but the underlying policy of POLITICIAN is designed to keep out content where notability inherited from an election or a one event WP:BLP1E. This means meeting the GNG is not enough alone in these cases (That’s why the policy is MAY not WILL). In this close there was socking going on and users unfamiliar to AFD which might suggest some background vote stacking. Let’s look at the votes.

• Nomination correctly lists the right policy and retention criteria.
• Non policy based argument from now banned user accused of off wiki canvassing and falsifying sources. No weight given
• Non policy based vote trying to make a USEFUL argument and argue ACADEMIC pass but not addressing criteria for that guideline. Low weight given.
• Draftify argument with a very strong source analysis addressing the relevant criteria. Compelling argument this does not belong in mainspace.
• Delete vote from IP pointing out that the content of one of the sources was misreprented. Decent delete argument.
• delete vote by an experienced admin who clearly has assessed the sources and states some are press releases.
• draftify vote showing source analysis that showsmthe sources are too weak for a BLP and not primarily about the subject.
• A keep vote with no reasoning from a user who hadn’t contributed to AFD for months before this. Did not respond to the request to explain vote and wasn’t there a suggestion of off site canvassing. No weight given.
• keep and draftify makes no sense and no real argument given.
• A keep vote from a user who last contributed to wikipedia space 4.5 years previously. Votestacking anyone? Anyway the argument is a bit assertive and more a plea to give it more time than a compelling policy based argument.
• A keep vote that seems to link to coverage connected to work - which sounds like inherited. I might have given more weight but the credibility of the vote was undermined by the ridiculous assert of inherent notability for being a deputy US attorney, which is is completely out of policy. If that is a key component of the argument then it has to get less weight.
• Finally a draftify vote that was a bit PERX but an experienced former admin and crat. Doesnt add a lot but cancelled out of the weeker keep votes.

The strongest votes here were those that directly addressed the sources and these showed the sources were not enough to pass GNG. That made delete the policy based outcome although it gets undeleted immediately shengets confirmed.

Hopefully you can see the detail and care that went into this close. Itsbtaken ages to go through the votes in detail so I’ll get to the others when I get time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to put together such a thorough answer, it's more than I was expecting.

I don’t think you have a great deal of experience in assessing consensus in deletion discussions; Yes, that's part of why I'm asking someone with plenty of experience to explain their thought process. I want to learn! (The other part being that I think it's good for the community if everyone is scrutinized occasionally, including editors with a long tenure and lots of experience.) I don't simply count votes, as you suggest I do.

Your thought process here makes sense to me, thank you for explaining it in such detail. As I mentioned, this is a lot more than I was expecting, so I don't expect you to do all of the AfDs in this depth. I don't want to take up too much of your time.

Maybe we could just look at one of them instead; I have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odrek Rwabwogo in mind. Here's my reading of the discussion:

• Nom is fine, the key guideline identified here is GNG
• Perfectly good delete !vote that addresses the relevant guideline
• Keep !vote that doesn't directly mention GNG, but provides relevant sources, and directly addresses the concern about paid sources from the nom
• Keep !vote with more sources, again doesn't mention GNG but is clearly referring to it, as it's the only guideline under discussion
• SportingFlyer's comment: I would evaluate that as a Keep. "Clearly meets GNG" presumably refers at least in part to the sources in the discussion, valid argument. A desire to rewrite doesn't necessarily mean deletion. It is weird that they didn't actually write a !vote, though.
• Weirdly phrased vote, but additional support for meeting GNG. maybe referring to WP:DINC, but that's a charitable assumption. I don't think a contributor's !vote should necessarily be weighted lower per se, but this isn't very strong.
• Completely misses the point of the discussion, can easily be disregarded

There seems to be agreement here that the subject meets GNG, at least with the sources discovered during the discussion. I see no argument criticising those sources or raising any major issue with them. If, hypothetically, we disregarded all keep !votes for whatever reason, or imagined a scenario where no editor !voted to keep, this discussion only has one delete !vote, which is usually considered a WP:NOQUORUM and too small to fully establish consensus for deletion. I could mayyybe interpret SF's comment as supporting TNT, but "rewrite" doesn't mean "delete". The point is that everyone who saw the new sources agreed that GNG is fulfilled, and only one editor pointed out that the article may need a rewrite. This is not consensus for deletion, nor for TNT.

Thanks again for your time. As I have said multiple times, I have no doubt that your closes are well-reasoned, and the analysis you provided above only supports that. Thanks :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 09:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my point with Odrek isn't clear but my short hand with TNT is that the content is unsuitable for mainspace but the subject is notable (if barely). There was a clear consensus that this was a promotional article written in a puffed up non encyclopedic tone by a COI editor that had no place in mainspace. I deleted to make way for a complete rewrite and put the deleted article in draft to make the sources and info boxes available. My expectation was that an experienced editor would quickly write a neutral article based on sources and that is still permitted by my close. Honestly wouldn't you agree that the best solution here would be that and it's expressly permitted if not encouraged by the close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do see agreement that the article content was promotional in that discussion, but I'm not sure that necessarily warrants deletion. I have some thoughts on this, but I think I should separate them into my general opinions on the one hand and my reading of AFD consensus on the other.

Personal opinion: I'm not a big fan of TNT; it's not in WP:DEL-REASON, and it's almost never a necessary step for cleanup. It's effectively a means to hide an entire page history from public view, but that's only necessary if the page history has real legal issues, such as egregious copyvio (covered by CSD or RevDel) or significant BLP violations that could be defamatory (already subject to WP:OS). An article with some promotional content but an appropriate subject is best stubbed and rewritten from there, and that doesn't necessitate deletion. The community has not widely agreed that promotional content warrants obfuscation from public view in all cases, but only when a page and its history are exclusively promotional (DEL-REASON 4 and G11). Those are my two cents on TNT.

More importantly, consensus at the AFD: While the participants raised PROMO issues, those arguments were still in Keep !votes. To me, that corresponds to something like this: "I think this article is bad right now, but it's not so bad it needs to be deleted or moved out of mainspace. We can Keep it and fix it." If they believed that deletion or draftification were necessary for cleanup (for example because of an egregiously and exclusively promotional page history), they wouldn't have put their PROMO concerns behind a Keep !vote. The consensus was, at least in my view, that the article should be kept and improved, not moved out of mainspace or deleted.

So what to do? I will be honest, DRV looks tedious even to me (and I've only visited one discussion there), and I don't see a need for it here. Both your resources and those of DRV are better spent elsewhere. Even if a hypothetical DRV were to result in an Overturn to Keep, the article would need to be rewritten, and the only people working on the draft seem to be the creators of the original article. I'll take a look at the sources, maybe I'll write a stub on Odrek myself.

I have learned a lot even from this brief conversation. Thanks again for your time! To be clear, I don't think discussion of the other AFDs I originally mentioned is needed.

Separately, if you are so inclined, I would value your input on an ongoing AFD that you're not involved with. (To be clear, input here, on this talk page. Please don't go and !vote there because of this comment, I'm not trying to CANVASS.) This is outside the scope of my original request, and it really has nothing to do with it. So if you don't have the time, or don't feel like it, I don't expect you to do it. It's a personal learning question :) The AFD in question is here, and three experienced users (including one admin) !voted based on a notability essay that has been rejected by RfC. I haven't taken a look at the new sources yet, so the two most recent Keeps are probably good arguments. But how would you evaluate those first !votes?

Thanks, and happy editing! Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 16:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I hate AFDs like that. What you are seeing here is what happens when a special Interest group with their own beliefs about inclusion clash with wider community consensus and expectations. What should happen is the weak non policy arguments should be drowned out by a bunch of non involved policy reflecting votes but afd is dying on its feet for lack of participation. If I closed that against policy it would be an obvious delete but the majority (but not a supermajority) is voting to keep. That seems destined to go no consensus, which is a crying shame. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seemed like a case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to me too. Thanks, and happy editing :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 08:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been merged in my opinion rather that deleted, can you please draftify so that I can preserve some of the material? - Indefensible (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve it where? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is some material which I think could be merged into the subject's cofounders' articles. But right now I cannot even check without the draft. - Indefensible (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in draft but I dont think there is very much transferable or worth preserving Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just some refs at least which can be used to improve the cofounder articles. - Indefensible (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please draftify this article? As I noted in the AfD I think he already passes GNG but I'll try to find another source or two to put it beyond doubt. SportingFlyer T·C 08:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sure, it's done Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the deletion review conversation about the Zafar Mahmud where I disagreed with the close, I do understand your logic better from the conversation. I also noticed a comment on your talk page, something like "Why do I bother" which I took to mean that your closures felt unappreciated. I also noted a comment by User:Liz that you tend to close more difficult AFDs. Anyway, this is all to say thanks for the work you do, for making difficult decisions, even if I disagreed with it. Sending a virtual drink for your efforts. CT55555(talk) 01:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=555809189&sxsrf=AB5stBiTGSh7zol1q2tD2BnVe9hrQnxWIQ:1691737231165&q=bienvenido+bones+ba%C3%B1ez+jr&tbm=bks&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjV-dylhNSAAxXH1jgGHWp3AGIQ0pQJegQIQBAB&biw=360&bih=683&dpr=2 49.146.36.1 (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the correct spelling Bienvenido Bones Banez at "Thomas Cooper Society Newsletter - Winter 2013" by University Libraries--University of South Carolina https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/tcl_news/17/ 49.146.36.1 (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what is this in relation to? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, does anyone have any idea what this might be about? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have something to do with Draft:Bienvenido "Bones" Banez, Jr. (trigger warning: emojis), which may be derived from User:Anthony Smile/sandbox. As to why it ended up on your talk page, no idea. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, glad to have solved this little mystery. Nothing for me to act on at least. Cheers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

This was marked as "delete" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mrs._Globe_(3rd_nomination).

There was only one delete vote and it was from the person who opened it (whose reasoning seemed to be based off of issues another user) while there were multiple keep votes. It was also tied in with two other AfD discussions which I don't know if I've ever seen before. I'm really not understanding this one at all. Can you please explain it?

Thanks KatoKungLee (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I read the comments not the bolded bits and assessed the arguments against the GNG:

• The nominator argued for notability failure and promotion. I only weighted the notability argument as the consensus was any promo was light and could be fixed by editing.
• A speed keep argument that didn't address the notability argument so added nothing to that element.
• Another keep argument that only addressed promo so nothing to add to the notability.

Relisting asking for GNG to be addressed

• A strong argument from a user who is often quite generous on GNG but identified a proper search any only 1 GNG level source - meaning that GNG is not met.
• A week keep based on a Canadian competition that doesn't address notability for the overall competition.

Overall, there was clear evidence that the GNG was not met for the overall competition that is fatal for the article as two sources are needed. If you have better sources put them here and I can assess to see if a further relist to discuss is worth doing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• - I would point to these five - 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 . All of these are long articles solely about it.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, it's been relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be plenty of coverage of this pageant on Newspapers.com, see for example [2] [3] [4] etc. - taking a look at the discussion, I do not see how it is possible that there was a consensus to delete - how the nom, a one-purpose account with 35 edits, saying I do not see a notable pageant, all I see is a pageant inappropriately using Wikipedia as a venue for promotion. plus a vague rant about COI and promo (which others disagreed with and you yourself say you give no weight to) is somehow of high enough strength to override three experienced editors who all argued that it should be kept!? If there was not a single other comment besides the nomination, that would act as a soft delete/prod or no consensus, so what this close is doing is basically stating that those who all said to keep somehow made it a stronger consensus to delete, which makes no sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Funny enough I don't look at the edit count of contributors when I'm closing AFDs. The question is purely around GNG and it's not my fault so many users whose not to address that.

  Let me have a look at your sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They look very local and the second is from a promo interview but what the heck I said I would relist. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of M43 (Durban). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spartaz,

I apologize for any inconvenience, and I hope I'm not causing you any undue inconvenience. There's an article on Babu Gogineni that was deleted two months ago. You had decided its deletion after discussions (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babu Gogineni (2nd nomination)). Yesterday, I invested a few hours in writing the article, using the sources I could find. Unfortunately, my version was also speedy deleted after publication. Could you please take a moment to review my version and determine whether it should be deleted or perhaps moved to a draft? I greatly value your judgment.

Thank you. RevenueDPT✉ 12:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz, thanks for your reply,

I tried to identify the three best works by Babu Gogineni. Thank you for your time.

[5] - Participated in Bigg Boss (Telugu season 2) (similarly I have found he hosted a show on 10TV Telugu of 30 episodes which are now available on Youtube).

[6] - Report on one of Telugu TV debate energy medicine (similarly I found report on exposing astrologer on Live TV)

[7] - Report on Selfie with the Ghost program (Also reported in Telugu language in BBC, Sakshi & Samayam Telugu) RevenueDPT✉ 15:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What biographical article can you build from these sources? No more than 3 or 4 lines because there is no content.

You are at this the wrong way. You need to find 3 WP:GNG worthy sources,

That means

Reliable - reputation for accurate fact checked reporting

indepth - a comprehensive detailed source that isnt a mention or about something else

independent - unconnected to the subject so the content is seen through an external eye not the eye of the subject. This is why interviews dont count to notability,

Please look again for 3 sources that meet this standard and I’d be happy to review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey can I get Boy Howdy (idiom) restored to my userspace? thx Herostratus (talk) Herostratus (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any deleted content there. You sure that is the right place? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Alex Zhavoronkov, I am requesting restoration of this topic to draft, so that I can develop article in light of post-deletion sources. I note that you closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Zhavoronkov based on the subject then being "marginally notable" and having requested deletion. I respect the close and believe this was correct at the time, but the subject's Google Scholar profile demonstrates (see the chart at the top left) that the subject has since increased in academic impact by orders of magnitude, going from fewer than 1,800 citations before 2018 to over 10,000 citations today. Commensurately, from 2018 to 2023, there have been dozens of news articles discussing the subject to some degree. I believe this combination of developments is at least sufficient to support having a draft on the subject in draftspace, to be submitted for consideration through the usual WP:AFC process. BD2412 T 04:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know where DRV is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will get around to it. As a nearly 20-year admin, I do appreciate your frustration with the matter, and I regret that it has taken up an inordinate amount of time. BD2412 T 19:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly don't care whether you go to DRV or not beyond the fact that we shouldn't casually recreate deleted BLPs where the subject has requested deletion. I remind you that content deleted for genuine BLP related reasons should not come back without a discussion. That frankly is an obligation that all admins should comply with and as a 15+ year admin myself I do find it astonishing that I need to remind you of this long standing requirement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you recently closed the AfC for this article as "merge". At the time of the AfD nomination, the article was in a state that it could've been merged or deleted. However, the AfD nominator's rationale for deletion was flawed. On top of that, I was able to expand the article by about six times its original length using several sources which I cited in the article. All citations were from reputable sources that meet WP:SIGCOV. I get that there was a second "merge" vote recently in the AfD, but I'm wondering whether anyone read the article before moving to wipe it? Any clarification would be helpful. Thanks! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me have a look at it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there were 6 citations at the time of deletion but having reviewed the sources myself I think the other commentators were right in their assessment.

1 EMIC article, this is a website with no author on this page and its structured a bit like a press release. Not clear independent, fact checked or reliable source, not counting imo

2 muusikaplant, another website but the article is not about the orchestra in any meaningful way. Its an account of a forthcoming concert and tells us little about the orchestra, this lacks necessary detail imo

3 ajakirimuusika no byline, reads like a press release more about the conductor then the orchestra. Unclear on independence and reliability some wouldn’t count for me

4 klaasikaradio namecheck in an article about an person. This in no way is GNG coverage

5 schott-music - namecheck so inadequate

6 sirp - no byline, no indication this is a reliable source.

so overall, I’m not seeing anything here allowing me to disregard the views of the other editors. Have you looked at WP:GNG to understand how to evidence a reliable source.? Happy to review if you get more information. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! I have to refresh my memory on nos. 2, 3, and 4, but Muusikka is the leading Estonian classical music magazine, comparable to Gramophone in English. Their article is not about the conductor, but about the PCO's announcement of a new music director and why it chose Mänd. As for EMIC and Sirp, they are respectively the national musical directory of Estonia and a major arts weekly that goes back to the Soviet period: both are published by the Estonian Ministry of Culture. All meet WP:RELIABLE and also meet WP:GNG (especially "reliable", "sources", and "independent of the subject"). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Been thinking about this with the extra context I'm not as comfortable with the close as I was originally. The problem is I can't just set aside the views of the other contributors and if I relist I suspect we won't get much interest in further reviews.

I suggest you contact the other contributors, point them in the direction of this discussion and ask them if they would be prepared to reconsider their views on the light of the sources you introduced. If they agree that gives me a basis to reclose based on updated views. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! In the event that they don't, since the decision had been to merge, would it be OK to restore some of this material within the merged article? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course that was always available to you Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the page Masha Danilova, when significant media coverage has been proven by myself in the deletion discussion? --Oleh325 (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources were all impeached in the discussion and literally no other editor supported retention of the article. Please see WP:THREE and I will review if you provide the three best sources and explain how they meet WP:GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. So, here's the three sources:

1. Unian ^[1]

2. TSN ^[2]

3. Gordon.ua ^[3]

Although it was hard to choose, because there were other articles in popular Ukrainian media websites. So according to GNG, the sources must be:

• "Presumed" — well from this three sources I can definitely say, that the person mentioned there should have their own article. It would be a mess if you add all of it to, for example, the page of Oleksiy Danilov. She already received significant popularity and was present in Ukrainian YouTube Music TOP-100 charts.^[4]
• "Significant coverage" — the sources' articles are directly about the singer or an event, that is directly linked to the singer.
• "Reliable" — the three sources mentioned are one of the most read media in Ukraine, and are considered strongly reliable in Ukrainian Wikipedia, and by English standarts these ones should also easily pass.
• "Sources" — the page has a lot of sources, most of them are secondary (this three I mentioned are secondary as well). Primary ones were only used to support the release dates, used in the Wikipedia article, as YouTube shows the most accurate date of release.
• "Independent of the subject" — this three sources have no relation either with the show business industry, music industry, or the singer herself. Most of the ones (but not all) mentioned on the page are also not related to the music industry whatsoever.

Oleh325 (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is an interview so isn't independent and the others are too short and look very tabloidy, which we wouldn't use for sources. This feels short to me and as I said every other contributor to the discussion felt the article should be deleted. This may be a case of WP:TOO SOON Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, alright, I guess it might be WP:TOO SOON. Can you restore it in my playground space (or how's called, I forgot..), so I could update it ocasionally? I have it backed up, but not the updated and fixed version. Thanks! --Oleh325 (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page watcher) This close was an straightforward correct evaluation of consensus. BD2412 T 21:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion clearly has a consensus for keep. That people base their arguments on an essay rather than "official" policy is reflective of the fact that "official" policy is out of whack with what is best for Wikipedia. This is exactly why we have WP:IAR. Please undo this closure. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Spartaz! I second what Headbomb says. This journal is included in three of the most selective databases around (Scopus, Science Citation Index Expanded, Index Medicus). If this is not a "keep", then >95% of journal articles can be deleted, too. As for NJournals, sure, it's an essai and not a guideline, but it clearly describes why I think this is notable enough for inclusion. Please have another look, IMHO at worst this should have been a "no consensus". Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the guiding policy you think I should apply? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't express a keep/delete opinion in that discussion, although I participated, but that close is a Wikipedia:Supervote if I ever saw one. It has no basis in consensus of the discussants. Please reconsider your bad close. Your close rationale should be listed as a "delete" opinion instead, which would at least bring the discussion closer to no-consensus instead of consensus-keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What policy compliant votes did I ignore. Please explain the supervote in a way that doesn't mean you disagree with the close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You are supposed to assess the consensus of the discussion, and close according to that consensus, rather than interjecting your own opinion on what the result should be and closing based on that opinion. Your close rationale obviously did not do that. All comments there were legitimate discussions of whether the sourcing was adequate for the article, most of them agreeing that it was, with only one dissenting delete opinion. That is clearly not a consensus that sourcing is inadequate. Even if you threw out all comments but the delete, for reasons, one delete comment is not enough to establish a consensus. As for your assumption that I am arguing with you here only because I disagree with the result: This is a gross violation of WP:AGF, and is contradicted by my initial sentence, which I'll quote again for you as you seem to have missed it the first time: I didn't express a keep/delete opinion in that discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Since we're not making headways here, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 21 Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, User:David Eppstein, I don't think "Please explain the supervote in a way that doesn't mean you disagree with the close." was intended as an assumption that you are arguing because you disagree with the result. My good faith interpretation is that User:Spartaz was asking you to identify specific policy-compliant votes that were ignored in determining consensus i.e. to provide more detail than was given in your initial comment. Suriname0 (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is unlikely. "Disagree with the close" can be interpreted either as meaning that I disagree with the evaluation of consensus, or that I am partisan in this and desire a different outcome. If it means the first, then Spartaz is asking for an oxymoron: an argument that the consensus was incorrectly evaluated without taking the position that the consensus was incorrectly evaluated. If it means the second, then it is a bad faith assumption that my comments here were dishonestly framed, omitting my real motivation. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think your interpretation is very reasonable! But I do actually think Spartaz meant the first, which ended up being an oxymoron due to the very poor wording, but could have been trying to ask for something like steelmanning the close. Either way, Spartaz should have apologized for causing confusion and offense, and you could have worded your interpretation in a way that assumed miscommunication rather than ill intent e.g. "I interpret your question as assuming that I am arguing with you here only because I disagree with the result, which I found confusing because as I previously stated I didn't express a keep/delete opinion in that discussion." Suriname0 (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Accusing someone of a supervote is always an assumption of bad faith. Once that starts we are done. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So you think most of the comments in the DRV are based in bad faith? An intriguing opinion but one that I do not share. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page watcher) I would suggest, as an alternative to reversing to a different outcome, that this discussion be relisted with a relisting note requesting a more specific basis in policy for keeping the article. BD2412 T 21:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone raise a matter of policy (sic) at any stage? Thincat (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the policy is an essay that the community recently refused to make a guideline, meaning it has no standing to overrule an actual guideline (GNG) or an actual policy (N) orvone of the 5 pillars (V). Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC wasn't about elevating it to a guideline, and guidelines are just that. Guidelines. They have plenty of exceptions, and here consensus is that GNG is inadequate for the topic, or alternatively that NJOURNALS is sufficient. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please send the deleted page to user ksherin? Ty. Ksherin (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]