Fanya Ismail (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have been asked to look into this close by a user and having done so I do not believe that this close was within process. (Edit: Uninvolved third-party administrator.)

The AFD was relisted on 12 April 2019. Following the relisting, one user argued for keep, one user argued for weak keep, and one user argued for delete. The user that relisted the AFD then, only two one day after relisting, closed it as a delete, citing issues with the sources all being "copies of the same press release". Whether this reason is true or not, the AFD had just been relisted and more users had argued to keep the article than delete it since that action. AFD is, of course, not a vote, but I fail to see what transpired after the relisting for this user to close it just two hours one day later.

There is concern in the case of this AFD that it demonstrates issues with systematic bias and I also note that the page was created as part of work by Wikimedia UK on increasing both diversity and coverage of women. While I do not feel this should cloud the Deletion Review judgement, I do feel that the least we can do is offer it a correct and by process AFD outcome. I, for one, cannot see a clear consensus in that debate, but I do see a lot of users aggressively arguing their reasons for deletion. Relisting was the correct course of action and this AFD should be reopened. KaisaL (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just on a point of fact, the discussion was actually closed more than 24 hours after relisting. I think the nominator misread the date. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. I have corrected this but the difference between two and fourteen hours doesn't change my arguments in the case of this DRV. KaisaL (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's still best to get the facts right, which are that it was not 14 hours but between 25 and 26 hours. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, OK. I think that's a distraction from the actual issue here, however. Even if it was seven days I would still see this as an incorrect closure because clearly there is no clear consensus formed after the relisting. KaisaL (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The closing rationale was unusually focused on my single Keep !vote (with the Arab sources).. many of those are PR copies but the point was to show there is wide attention being paid to it in the Arab world. And not all are PR copies, see this source. Is dwarosh.net reliable? We use it throughout Wikipedia. These Arab sources do not detract the existence of many other English-language sources which the closer gave no reason for ignoring, or the !votes that cited them. -- GreenC 16:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I am also concerned that we had some unusual activity in this AfD with Deleters. One involving a newbie to AfD (this is only their 5th or 6th AfD) yet who displayed a high level of confidence and knowledge about the nuances of Notability and Policy that is not typical of someone new to AfD. And another sock-like account that has since been blocked. And another account that shows up only occasionally to participate in a few AfDs then goes offline again. There is not evidence to sanction but I think it is a factor to weigh. -- GreenC 16:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved, nominator). Note no one discussed this with the closing admin prior to DRVing. As for the AfD - the Keep votes were not policy based - a combination of ILIKEIT, RGW, and throwing 17 copies (lightly edited) of the same Arabic PR release in various online sites. The subject is far off from SIGCOV or NPROF - PR following a minor award is not sufficient to establish notability for a bio.Icewhiz (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how these arguments relate to a deletion review. The fact that a significant number of people argued contrary to deletion, leading to a relist, and then the situation was clouded more by a lack of consensus thereafter, followed by a deletion close when no clear consensus had been further established, is what this DRV is about. Your arguments would make more sense had the relisting not occurred, but it's difficult to argue a no consensus was turned into a deletion consensus from the activity after the relisting. Just listing buzzword type phrases against every argument, and writing off everyone that disagrees with you as "not policy based", is a problem with AFD but it's not the reason for this DRV. The argument is, in fact, that the close was not policy based. Time should have been given to form a consensus, and if a clearer consensus was not reached then the convention would be to keep the article. KaisaL (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist (involved, !voted keep after relisting). *Ahem* not based on policy? I posted four English-language sources after the relisting which I contend are SIGCOV. One of them, from The Manufacturer magazine, a delete !voter had earlier described as "one solid source". So I thought if one of the remaining three would be seen as significant, that'd be enough to get over GNG. However, the AfD was closed less than a day after I posted (which was after the earlier relist). I can't see the deleted article, but I think at least one of the sources I posted was entirely new and not in the article or AfD discussion (and possibly more than one, I just can't remember). I think the discussion would benefit from remaining open a while longer. Also, it's not entirely accurate that no one went to the closer's talk page; GreenC posted a message which GreenC removed after this DRV was posted. Ironically, just as I believe the AfD was closed too soon after relisting, I think this DRV was posted too soon after GreenC's talk page post. 24 hour rule should apply for message responses, as there is no deadline, etc. Leviv ich 17:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Temporarily undeleted for people to look at during this deletion review--the last version is in the page history DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A tough AfD to process because Randykitty wasn't able to elaborate on their close, but I think delete is an acceptable outcome for that discussion. While it appears to be about a 50-50 !vote, many of the keep votes were not grounded in policy, including one of the weakest weak keep !votes I've seen. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematically it is about 60% keep, out of 12 !votes. Given the closers singular-focus on a single !vote. Even delete that and it's still over 50% keep. Plus other issues like the unusual speed with which it was closed. -- GreenC 19:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote count, it's an evaluation of the quality of the arguments. The keep arguments were weak, and it is a waste of time to re-litigate this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of this as a non-participant is that the closer didn't "focus on a single !vote" but rather acknowledged the argument none of the foreign language articles were useful for WP:GNG, meaning "delete" is a valid outcome. Also as a note to the closer, I also recognise many of the participants here from the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 02:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic sources didn't come into the AfD until late, the previous Keeps didn't know about them. Only myself and one other editor mentioned the Arabic sources. Yet they dominated the closer's rationale and attention. Even in my !vote, the Arabic source were supplementary to other existing sources. The closer cherry picked some weaker sources to prop up as a rationale, like a strawman. -- GreenC 02:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as closer As nobody even tried to communicate with me before opening this DRV, I assume there's no interest for me to expand on my "delete" closure. --Randykitty (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator may have omitted to communicate with you, which I find rather surprising from an administrator, but I, and I am sure others, would welcome your input. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Randykitty: I concur with Phil Bridger, an elaboration would be welcome from those of us not involved in the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Phil Bridger and SportingFlyer. Some points in more or less random order about my closure. 1/ AfDs should generally not be closed before they have run for 7 days (except rather rare SNOW closes or withdrawn noms). A relist does not mean that another 7 days must elapse before a debate can be closed. 2/ After the debate had run for 7 days, I already was on the sup of closing this "delete". Several of the "delete" !votes were very well argued (the one by DGG, for example), whereas many of the "keep" !votes were very weak (the one directly above DGG's !vote, for example). However, a list of 18 sources in Arabic had been posted just before and I had no time at that point to look into that !vote, so I decided to relist. 3/ After the relist there was a very weak "weak keep" !vote and as it had been asserted that the Arabic language sources were basically just press releases, I decided to check this and agreed with that. I don't think that means my closure was a "supervote", all I did was checking whether one of the arguments given in the debate was correct or not. 4/ I mentioned especially the Arabic sources in my close, because they were presented late in the debate and there were an unusual large number. 5/ Perhaps I should have mentioned in my close that the 4 English sources listed by Levivich again were all the same press release (using the same language and the same photographs). 6/ Taken together, I thought that the case for "delete" had the stronger arguments and as the debate had already gone for more than 7 days, I saw no reason to draw it out any longer. 7/ As for the mathematical !vote count, possible unsavory motives, or even socking, I don't care much, because I don't count !votes but go by the strenght of arguments presented. There's a comment above about an "account that shows up only occasionally to participate in a few AfDs then goes offline again". I note that this also goes for the admin who opened this DRV, but that doesn't mean that their DRV nom should be discounted out of hand. The same standard should be applied to AfD !votes. 8/ Concerning the arguments about systemic bias, I don't think that is an issue here. Systemic bias would be if we were to hold a woman, or a person of Kurdish descent, to higher standards than the proverbial "dead white male". Systemic bias should be countered by putting in an effort to create more articles on notable women or notable minority persons, not by lowering our standards for these persons. 9/ Hope this sufficiently explaiins my reasoning in closing this AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your explanation, it is appreciated as this looks like it will get contentious. I stand by my endorse vote as a result. SportingFlyer T·C 03:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The close was clearly correct; there were no policy-based arguments that demonstrated notability. --Tataral (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor was involved, they !voted delete. -- GreenC 23:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist the close was too quick for me have a chance to look at this before it was deleted. --mikeu ^talk 22:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved, !vote delete) The issues of "systemic bias" are contrived and irrelevant in this context. There was no evidence that the subject satisfied either WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. This is a big, disruptive waste of time, and WP:SNOW applies. I also have concerns about WP:MEATPUPPETs affecting the vote tally. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved, !vote weak keep) While I'm still uncertain about the article, the decision to delete seemed fair even if the process of relisting and closing happened too quickly. Since the page for the minor award covered in the article (Innovate UK) is currently without sources, interested Wikipedia users might first improve that article before reconsidering this one. Userqio (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist - The issue is not whether the article should be kept or deleted, but whether the closer acted properly. The closer made a good-faith error in casting a supervote based on checking the Arabic sources, when that should have been a valid argument for a Keep !vote. The closer should have !voted to Delete and let the AFD run for another week. This isn't so much systemic bias as a good-faith error in acting in two roles at once, !voter and closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) There was no error. The link dump Arabic sources, which were basically regurgitations of a press release on the subject being awarded a minor grant, contributed nothing to notability, which requires in-depth, WP:SUSTAINED coverage from multiple sources. The Consider reading WP:SNOW. 2) Reopening the AfD because of a supposed technicality, even though the closure was proper, is the type of WP:WIKILAWYERING that we should absolutely not be engaging in. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about the Arab sources! Only two users mentioned them, and even they only as part of the rationale. Those sources are a strawman. The closer made a WP:SUPERVOTE based on a minor aspect of the AfD blown out of proportion. The extension saw many new participants arriving that was handicapped by the unusually rapid closure. -- GreenC 13:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there was no other rationale. The subject neither meets WP:NACADEMIC nor WP:GNG. It's time to WP:DTS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there were rationales you just didn't agree with them is all. You are "re-litigating" at this point (as you call it). -- GreenC 14:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who requested the relisting, which is what I was referring to by calling this relitigating. I'm not sure what other arguments you would expect me to make beyond those I initially made on the deletion page. The evidence presented was essentially a widely circulated press release for a minor award accompanied by a grant and passing coverage in one or two other sources. I and other editors were not convinced this met the notability threshold under WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG and accordingly voted delete—the closer assessed those arguments and offered a thorough explanation of their process in the discussion closure. I do not see a WP:SUPERVOTE, and I don't think it's appropriate to try and read a negative or malicious motivation into a discussion closer's action because one didn't like the result. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This contentious and active AfD was closed too soon. 3 or 4 new !votes showed up just in the ~24h period between the extension and the close, with some of the keeps bringing in new sources! Who knows what else might have appeared with more time? I stated I was still researching sources in the Kurdish language. The closer assumed the only sources were a single PR, they assumed 7 days was sufficient to research multiple languages and sources. It was not. -- GreenC 18:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the closer properly read the consensus of policy-based arguments. DGG ( talk ) 10:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A blatant supervote. The closer was clearly involved, engaging in their own OR and expressing their own opinion of the matter, without any regard to the discussion or the views of its particpants. Andrew D. (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is patent nonsense. The closer directly addressed the substantive arguments made on the discussion page and indicated they were more persuasive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, they didn't. I found a perfectly good source, said so, listed several applicable policies and this was all completely ignored. That's pretty much SOP for this closer. To understand this, consider their closes for this month. There have been many of these and almost all of them are to delete the article in question. There seems to be only one close with a keep result and it is instructive to compare this with the case in question. That case was also a question of notability but that article didn't have any sources – just one dubious external reference. But even though the sourcing and content of that article was comparatively pathetic, it was kept. In other words, the article about a man was kept and the article about the woman was deleted, even though it had better sources. The woman was clearly being held to a higher standard and so it's blatant bias which should be overturned. Andrew D. (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There's an interesting case study in relisting in the AfD Andrew brings up here, Yue Safy. Safy had one NFOOTY-qualifying game and no coverage for GNG. At the same time, an article about his teammate was also up for AfD, Narong Kakada, with the same profile: 1 NFOOTY game, no GNG. After one week, both discussions looked the same in terms of !votes. Safy was closed as keep without relisting, but Kakada was relisted, and closed as delete after the source supporting the 1 NFOOTY game was examined a bit closer and determined to be unreliable. (Disclosure: I !voted in both of these.) Leviv ich 00:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, reading sexism into this discrepancy, when you know as well as I do that the problem is the discrepancy between the overly inclusive NFOOTY and the relatively stringent NPROF is inappropriate. I am not sure if you were heavily involved in the push to make NFOOTY as easy to pass as it is, but given some of the other notability and deletion policy discussions in which you and I crossed paths, I wouldn't be surprised. Additionally, you listed the AFD at ARS without disclosing as much at the AFD itself (violating ARS's rules), and in the same listing you made a personal attack against the nominator for which you have yet to apologize. So I would ask you to please refrain from attacking more editors over this issue, as you have done here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore him. Reyk _YO! 18:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. I think the sources presented by Levivich could use some evaluation. Also, ((closing)) or a note instead of relisting may have caused less surprise when a close is intended after the presented sources are checked. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all the same press release. I appreciate Randykitty's thorough and thoughtful explanation, and it's Exhibit A why I believe this could have been resolved at their talk page instead of DRV. I disagree, however, that the four sources I posted are "all the same press release (using the same language and the same photographs)". With one exception, these four sources contain different content, using different language, with different quotes, published under different bylines, on different dates in March 2019, in different reliable, independent publications. While they do use the same picture, that is common and doesn't detract from the journalism in any way. And while they all appear to use a press release as a source, that is also common and doesn't make them "all the same press release". Compare: March 8, 2019 by Katie Nelson, Kent Online and March 25, 2019 by Maddy White, The Manufacturer magazine. If you put them both in to the Copyscape comparison tool, it's only a 2% match, and for phrases like "Sol-Gel Coatings", "as part of" and "single use plastic". The one exception is that the eppm magazine source copies a lot from The Manufacturer magazine article, but that doesn't mean the Manufacturer article copied from a press release. Here's all four:

Copyscape.com comparison of sources posted by Levivich

	March 8, 2019 by Katie Nelson, Kent Online	March 10, 2019 by Kurdistan24 (no byline)	March 25, 2019 by Maddy White, The Manufacturer magazine	March 26, 2019 by Rob Coker, eppm magazine
March 8, 2019 by Katie Nelson, Kent Online	n/a	5%	2%	4%
March 10, 2019 by Kurdistan24 (no byline)	5%	n/a	0%	3%
March 25, 2019 by Maddy White, The Manufacturer magazine	2%	0%	n/a	13%
March 26, 2019 by Rob Coker, eppm magazine	4%	3%	24%	n/a

Knock out eppm and you still have WP:THREE. I don't speak Arabic so I'm in no position to judge the Arabic sources' distinctiveness from each other (Google Translate cannot help in such matters), but take it as a given that they're all copies, and they still count as "one source", bringing the total SIGCOV count to four. Final thought: a relist doesn't have to stay open for 7 days, but if you get three !votes in 24hrs after a relist, that's a very good reason to keep it open longer. Leviv ich 18:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misleading argument. All of the sources are conveying the same content, and unless you can establish their reliability, these do not count towards WP:SIGCOV. In addition, there's no WP:SUSTAINED. This kind of tedious arguing is why we have WP:SNOW. We had a deletion discussion, it was procedurally sound, and the consensus was delete. If the subject garners additional coverage in a few months that establishes notability, we'll all be in agreement. Until then, there is no reason to overturn this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding "the consensus was delete" is a really unfortunate tool to be using here to draw attention to a statement that clearly everyone does not agree with. I would in fact, to take a page out of your book, say there was no consensus at the time of the close and it should have stayed relisted for further assessment. All of the people hyperanalysing a list of sources are sort of missing the point that fundamentally a relisting had took place and after that relisting nothing had happened to generate a consensus (if anything, it should have been closer to a keep after the relisting). The closing admin re-read things or changed their mind, cast their supervote and deleted the article. That single list should not have informed that later decision so heavily nor negated other comments that argued against the views of other users. This isn't sound procedurally. Half of the debate here honestly belongs on the AFD page that should still be open. KaisaL (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same content. The Manufacturer piece has a section about cross-sector applications of the technology that is not included in the Kent Online piece. The Kent Online piece quotes a government official, who is not quoted in The Manufacturer piece. The Manufacturer goes into more detail about plastic refuse and how the technology was developed than the Kent Online piece. The Kent Online piece mentions that she's a mother of three, which is not mentioned in The Manufacturer piece. Kent Online is owned by KM Group, which had ABC audited circulation and is a member [1] of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, the largest press regulator in the UK. The Manufacturer magazine has 158,000 readers and editorial oversight [2]. Kurdistan 24 I don't need to defend as an RS; it's a worldwide satellite and television station with foreign bureaus in the US and Germany. This is the kind of discussion we could have been having in the AfD. Leviv ich 20:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the link dump of sources in Arabic. The majority of those were recycled content based on translates and offered nothing new. The other two English sources may be reliable, but two minor pieces do not make someone notable. This is not WP:SUSTAINED. This is the problem; the relist proposal has essential turned into an extension of the deletion discussion, with the same participants and the same arguments (or slightly altered positions and arguments). This is a waste of time and should be closed; there was nothing improper about the disclosure. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you fluent in Arabic? It would be very useful to hear from an Arabic-speaking editor about those sources–another reason the relist should have been kept open. Leviv ich 20:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, nor do I need to be — a Google translate indicates that they are all substantively communicating the same information and drawing from the same sources, and none stand out as notable or authoritative. I'm also not interested in prolonging the deletion discussion, where these exact same points were made.

If users cannot succinctly point out an actual error committed by the closing user other than alleging WP:SUPERVOTE without evidence or a persuasive argument (other than they don't like the result), this conversation should be closed with no further action. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Arabic source really is different from all the rest, substantially so, not PR. Very much an original piece. The others are not copies of a PR, but wire copies of a BBC article similar to how papers subscribe to Reuters. You can see it says "BBC" at the bottom of each. -- GreenC 22:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic sources were posted on April 12 and the discussion closed on April 13. One day is just not enough time to go through 16 Arabic-language sources and discuss them. Otherwise, things like "hey it's a BBC wire" would have come to light. A BBC wire is SIGCOV. Leviv ich 22:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it was syndicated by BBC, why aren't there more outlets picking it up? Continuing to discuss these sources is a waste of time, because we've demonstrated neither WP:SIGCOV nor WP:SUSTAINED. This is why it was ideal for the discussion to be closed when it was - otherwise this filibustering, contrary to consensus, never ends. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You said it was a Press Release but never provided evidence. By all appearances you may have got it wrong, the pages have a "BBC" byline. We are here to improve Wikipedia and get it right. -- GreenC 04:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely at the 4 items, the first two are actually very close-- they include exactly the same things, and are almost certainly based upon the same press release. The coverage in the Manufacturer is different, much more technical and avoiding the absurdities of the newspaper accounts that say she invented sol-gel chemistry, Eppm 's coverage is similar to that--and in factthe article says that some of it is based on her interview with the Manufacturer. The Manufacturer's coverage is at least partly based on an interview with her, and those are not reliable sources for notability , because the person can say whatever they like. But at least that one source is worth considering. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, I'd say there is a reasonable argument that this is a WP:BLP1E, where the award is the one event. That's what a lot of people effectively argued and it's reasonable. weak endorse as a reasonable close. I think NC would have been a somewhat better reading. But this isn't wrong given the discussion and the facts on the ground. FYI, I'd have probably !voted to keep based on the sources. Hobit (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse This situation could have been avoided had Randykitty specified the Arabic-language sources as a comment in the relisting template, and elaborated on her closure while closing as "delete". The closure was reasonable following her explanation at this DRV. The purpose of relisting a discussion is to seek more participation; it does not reset the timer, and the discussion can be closed at any time after the relisting. Whether the explanation too late is another matter. feminist (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As the person that brought it to DRV, I'd like to reiterate that I haven't in fact even commented on which way I would have hypothetically !voted in an AFD, I'm only arguing the case that the procedure was wrong, as per the purpose of the DRV process. A lot of comments here are heavily emotionally involved and are focused more on the subject's notability than whether the AFD was closed correctly. KaisaL (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, could you clarify who asked you to open the DRV and what the basis of their complaint was? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- Other editors had mentioned that most of the new sources were regurgitations of the same press release. Randykitty merely confirmed that was true, and did not introduce that as a new argument. There's nothing wrong with that. Reyk _YO! 08:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Void AfD close and relist. I was in the process of closing this, but after reading it all, I've decided I'd rather comment. My practice is to bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of impropriety. One way I do that is to limit myself to a single administrative act in a given discussion. If I relist something, I don't later close it. Leave it for another admin to do. Just like we want WP:INDEPENDENT sources, having independent administrative actions is a good thing. And, while WP:RELIST says you don't have to wait a full seven days on a relist, it also says, may be closed once consensus is determined. It's really hard to see how adding two "keep" and one "delete" (after FIFAukr's comment is ignored due to my blocking them) to a discussion where there was no consensus, could push that over the edge to the consensus being "delete". And, lastly, it's not the job of the closer to evaluate the sources. It's the job of the closer to evaluate the arguments other people have made. I don't think any of these issues are, by themselves, sufficient to overturn the close. Taken together, however, I think the community would have more confidence in a new close by another, uninvolved, admin. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems like an eminently sensible idea, and I wish that it had happened earlier. There are good-faith comments made in this discussion by people who had looked at the sources provided and come to different conclusions from the closer. That evidence should be considered in an AfD discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is forum-shopping at its worst. The deletion discussion resulted in consensus to delete, and "keep" proponents are now using deletion review to challenge the propriety of the close by arguing minute technicalities, accuse the closer of a WP:SUPERVOTE (without basis), and relitigate the original issue without presenting any new evidence. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fight the New Drug (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Request to revert an inappropriate WP:G4 speedy deletion. I've never seen the deleted version of the article so I cannot verify if my article were substantially identical to the deleted version. However, as far as I can see, the original reasons for deletion no longer apply: the article I created shows sustained coverage, is not focused on any particular event, lacks POV pushing or promotional content, relies entirely on secondary sources independent of the subject, and does not contain any mention of videos or Elizabeth Smart. I was unaware of the previous AfD discussion when creating the article because I (accidentally) created the article at Fight the new drug before moving it to the correct capitalization. I have already contacted the deleting administrator, who has not responded to my request despite having continued editing. feminist (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This doesn't look like a good G4 to me. There's no overlap in either text or refs, and none of the promotionalism or coatracking for Elizabeth Smart that the afd mentions. A recreation less than a month after the AFD of an article that had been around for almost five years before that is usually questionable, so I'm not going to fault either the tagger or deleting admin. (edited to add: well, not about the deletion, anyway. Salting it was uncalled for.) Overturn, and send it back to afd iff someone still wants it redeleted. —Cryptic 13:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC), 14:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: There is more context available in this discussion — User talk:Feminist#Speedy deletion nomination of Fight the New Drug. I have ((tempundelete))'d the article for this process. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC) 20:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment: since that discussion refers to earlier discussions on the talk-page of the article, I've temporarily restored that as well; the last version before the AfD deletion of the page was this one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I looked at the version deleted at AfD and the recreated article. Both the text and reference list are completely different. I have no opinion on whether the new article would pass a new AfD, but it's certainly not WP:G4 material. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • RoySmith, in this comment, Tgeorgescu says that the references were discussed on the talk page and rejected — [3]. After a cursory review, I am in general agreement with them about this claim, with the exception of the source from the Atlantic. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RoySmith and Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington: Yup, I am not completely sure, but since the Atlantic source is from 2016, it could have been part of the article that did not survive AfD, at a certain point in its history. I would be amazed if it were never used in the article, i.e. before feminist cited it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on a quick reading of the talk page before the first deletion, it appears that these sources were removed not because they weren't reliable, but because they were used to support content that was poorly written. I don't see why they can't be used to establish notability if they are used appropriately as sources. I'd also note that on that talk page, Ian.thomson suggested a number of independent RS that can be used, including this Daily Dot article that covers the subject in-depth. feminist (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • An afd that was either unaware of the prior use of a source like this, or deliberately included it with those it characterized variously as "passing mentions", "nothing substantial", or "opinion-type hit pieces in student newspapers", would be deficient and overturnable on that basis alone anyway. —Cryptic 11:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yup, it wasn't my decision, it was a collective process which ended reducing the article to a promotional stub. The removal has been done by some editors I respect, so I saw no direct motivation for challenging their edits. My take is about WP:RULES and collective decisions, I have no dog in whether the article should be restored or deleted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn In no way is this a WP:G4, the new article is completely different. Obviously no comment on whether it'd survive a deletion discussion, but WP:G4 was improper here. SportingFlyer T·C 02:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral or Confused - I haven't seen enough information to assess whether the two articles were similar enough to warrant a G4, and this appears to be an appeal of a G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Robert McClenon: It is a G4 appeal, so it's whether the old version here [4] is substantially similar to the new version here [5]. SportingFlyer T·C 03:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - The concerns raised in the original AfD were that the article lacked in-depth coverage in reliable sources and was promotional. The new version appears to address these concerns, citing five reliable sources and lacking a promotional tone. Clearly WP:G4 was inappropriate. CataracticPlanets (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A key very reliable source was added (The Atlantic), and the promotional tone removed. (relist is possible, but I think it would be kept at a new afd) The deleting admin is extremely reliable and in my opinion quite conservative, but this was an error. I've made a few similar, and so has everyone else who is active in patrolling speedy. DGG ( talk ) 10:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Sources for the article seems in order in terms of notability. A cursory Google search results in some more sources. Juxlos (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]