Alberta Association of Architects (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It has been revealed that 1/2 of the people giving opinions and 2/3rds of the people arguing for deletion were the same person engaging in sock puppetry. See [1] and [2][3].

Discounting this user's participation we are left with one comment in support of the article and one weak delete.

While this AfD may have come to the correct conclusion it is also possible that it may have been unduly influenced by sock puppetry.

I recommend given the circumstances that we relist the AfD. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The page is currently moved to draft space and is in better shape than it was when first at AfD: Draft:Alberta Association of Architects. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I shared HighInBC's concerns about the sockfluence and had draftified it to see what I could do and had actually planned to bring it back here if I felt I got it to a suitable place to meet the GNG as AFC takes too long and as I was the one who brought the socking editor to ANI, I was too involved for a unilateral restoration. As it currently stands, it's not ready for prime time but I'm hoping to work on it in the next few days as I identified some sourcing that I think will get the article to where it needs to stand in mainspace. If relisting involves reverting it to as was at the time, feel free. If consensus is it's acceptable, we can do a histmerge with the draft additions I imagine? Would also love to hear possible merge targets as I feel their work in licensing Canada's first female architect is an important piece of history. Star Mississippi 00:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. I wouldn't be against a WP:BOLD restoration by Star Mississippi for no other reason than WP:DENY. Why should one editor's disruptive behaviour force other editors to walk some arbitrary line? Honestly, its not the last article we'll see here at DRV because of this editor's disruptive behaviour; there are many where they are the lone supporter of deletion or have provided a seemingly policy-based reason for deletion only for a personal distaste for the subject to later become evident (eg. the last line in Star's comment). St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate AfD due to socking influence. A new AfD would be fine, if anyone thinks it really needs one, as would moving it from draft into mainspace when any editor thinks it's ready... but WITHOUT the threat of a G4 hanging over it--which as we well know here, is the most often inappropriately applied CSD. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist the AFD due to the suckpoppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, I'm going to go with relist as well. I feel that we can't overturn without relisting, because that's unfair to the AfD nominator, who's a good faith editor making a cogent argument.—S Marshall T/C 11:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely no issue with Czar or Novum Linguae's actions. The article, as it stood, was barely more than an A7 and consensus appeared clear. Unfortunately an issue with longstanding articles, since it's impossible to maintain and update all six million plus, and the general lack of participation at AfD. An architectural association isn't a topic that will engender passioned discussion. Star Mississippi 13:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Star Mississippi has rendered the issue somewhat moot - it wouldn't be fair to send it back to mainspace and AfD it again while it's being worked on, and comments made at the prior AfD wouldn't reasonably apply to an improved version anyway. I suggest we just leave it in draft space until Star Mississippi has finished. If it then gets moved back to mainspace then it can be AfDed again. Hut 8.5 18:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment it still needs work, but I believe I've taken it to a place it would survive AfD. Star Mississippi 20:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move draft to mainspace - the new draft is solid and I can't see anyone having any reason to nominate it for deletion. I suspect the original nominator - who did nothing wrong here - would agree (so pinging Novem Linguae). St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Athar Aamir Khan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Unusual NAC close by Aj Ajay Mehta 007 coming just hours after second relist by Qwaiiplayer. There were two keep !votes and two comments on sourcing. I suspect this discussion should have been left open. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• We've established in a thorough source analysis at a recent DRV that the Indian Express and the Hindustan Times are reliable sources, and they're clearly independent of the subject, and they're linked in the article. I can't see any realistic prospect whatsoever of this article being deleted. The discussion was open for a sufficient period, and it was closed by an uninvolved editor in an orderly manner. What's the problem exactly?—S Marshall T/C 21:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is uninvolved? —Cryptic 21:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. The DGFA say you can't close a discussion you participated in. They don't say you can't close a discussion about an article you've edited. By our rules this was an uninvolved close.—S Marshall T/C 00:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The second relist was more questionable than the subsequent NAC. I agree this appears uncontroversial and just the sort of discussion we don't need an admin to close. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate. A "keep" closure would be difficult to defend at all – barring a serious strength-of-argument issue, one delete, two keeps, and two unsure strikes me as a clear "no consensus" – but it's certainly a disputable closure, which means it shouldn't be closed by a non-admin. (If a good-faith longstanding contributor objects to your closure, that's a pretty good sign that it was too controversial for an NAC.) The fact that the closer had previously made substantial edits to the article makes things worse, per WP:NACINV. I don't think we need to decide at this stage what the correct closure is: since the NAC was out of process, it should be reverted to allow for reclosure by an uninvolved administrator. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never looked at NACINV before, thanks for linking it. An interesting essay. I'm intrigued by the idea that editing an article makes an editor, but not a sysop, an involved closer. Can't say I agree with that.—S Marshall T/C 00:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't noticed that the NAC closer had edited the article, thanks for pointing that out, although I suspect that should have been the job of the person appealing the closure. On the merits, though, no, I disagree: In two relists not one editor unambiguously agreed with the AfD nominator. That's not even a 'no consensus', that's a clear keep. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as an involved closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If you are a creative author of the article, you are involved with the article. Minor edits, gnoming, or adding sources, does not really make you an author in a real sense, although technically you are by Wikipedia standards. An uninvolved admin should countersign the close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This business of article authorship equating to involved closure is interesting. Rather to my surprise, it does seem to be widely believed at DRV, but WP:DGFA do not say that. WP:INVOLVED could maybe be read in that light, depending on whether you believe the closer's edits amounted to participation in the dispute. We might need to clarify our guidelines.—S Marshall T/C 14:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m not sure if a few non-creative (attribution legally requiring) edits, including adding three references, makes an editor black letter INVOLVED, but NAC-ers should be very conservative in their closing, and avoid the mere perception of closing with prior involvement. This is a borderline NAC involved complaint. Ideally, on being questions, a good NAC-er will revert their close. It is *never* net helpful for a non-admin to close a discussion if it means another week at DRV, even if the complaint will not be upheld.

    I look at User talk:Aj Ajay Mehta 007#Please undo your close and conclude that, I am not sure what to make of that discussion and a third editor’s rush to file a DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  An uninvolved admin should countersign the close . That’s all that’s needed for this DRV nomination. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American propagandists (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Minimally attended discussion of nom that was potentially flawed because it ignored that the cat was part of an established category structure (Category:Italian propagandists, Category:German propagandists, many others). Subsequently cat has been recreated, speedy deleted, and is now populated as a WP:REDNOT. Suggest restoring, immediately relisting to allow broader discussion. Closing admin notified on talk page, here, has no opposition. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a POV category and categorically inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I swear I usually don't think much of WP:WHATABOUTX arguments, but I can't find any other subcategory of Category:Propagandists by nationality that's been challenged at CFD, and some have existed and been populated for years. They should really have been discussed as a group. —Cryptic 21:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Consistency is important in categorization.—S Marshall T/C 21:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a valid close that could have also applied to the sibling categories. This is Other Stuff Exists, and the other stuff can also be nominated. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Sarcastic question - Are the propagandists being held as Category:Political prisoners for their propaganda activites? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion, relist as a group I think the broader issue needs to be discussed. Where we ended up doesn't make sense and the issue of consistency wasn't raised. I'd be fine getting rid of all of these. A fairly distant second choice would be to keep these. And if folks really decide that American propagandists are different than other ones, fine I guess. But the issue wasn't even raised, so the discussion is, IMO, too flawed to be useful. The closer cannot be faulted here, thus the endorse. And I don't see the need to undelete this cat unless a broader discussion results in keeping this (a NC close of such a discussion should result in restoration IMO). Hobit (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The other categories may fare better at CfD, e.g. most of the entries in Category:German propagandists are people who made propaganda for the Nazi regime and it's not controversial to describe them as propagandists. But I have no objection to a relist together with those other categories. Hut 8.5 19:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lothlorien Hall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The last version can be found here.

Primary issue of the debate was the use Daily Californian articles as some of the main sources to establish notability. The newspaper is independent of UC Berkeley. In addition Berkeley Student Cooperative which Lothlorien Hall is part of, is independent of the University. It’s only requirement is that residents are students, and just as many residents are Bay Area students from other colleges as from UC Berkeley. I think another reason for some editors' failing to recognize Lothlorien’s notability, was that the 1984 Killing of Roberta 'Bibi' Lee was only briefly mentioned. A former resident of Lothlorien was killed by her boyfriend a resident of the house. At first she was considered missing, and a search party was organized by Lothlorien (with the the search center known as Treehaven) over 2,000 people participated and approximately 3 million flyers were distributed along the west coast. This was covered nationally.

Lothlorien retained a 60's new age/hippy/spiritual nature of the house's previous resident - One World Family Commune, which is embraced by a large portion of the residents. The killing has left an impact on this aspect and the ghost of killed ‘Bibi' is considered to haunt the place. This has been addressed in detail by Daily California article as well as in a published book (this link is to an article about it). Lothlorien is one of the book's primary subjects. It was not cited at the time.

There is an article regarding Lothlorien, published in Communities, life in cooperative culture a quarterly journal. Editors have questioned the notability of the subject, even though there are approximately 1,500 communes currently established or in planning phase in the United States. The journal is carried in academic libraries of universities like Cornell, San Diego State and Universite de Montreal.

Also, like two other BSC houses - Cloyne Court Hotel and Kingman Hall, the 2405 Prospect Ave. part of the co-op carries historical and architectural significance. Unlike the other two it has not been officially recognized as a historical landmark by Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, however it does consider it to be notable - it has a facebook entry regarding it and it's part of their Berkeley tour.

The building was known as the Maxwell House because of its original resident George Hebard Maxwell the “Father of Reclamation" who was the co-author of National Reclamation Act that allowed the development projects like Hoover Dam, without such dams there would not be a western half of the United States.

Thank you for looking over this. Rybkovich (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It appears that the impetus for this is 1) Rybkovich, the primary author and advocate un-redirected and substantially expanded the article, and 2) Onel5969, the AfD nominator, promptly redirected it again referring back to the AfD. My take on this is that the content appears to have changed sufficiently that a new AfD would be in order. Sourcing looks reasonable, but the acrimonious original AfD appears marked by a bunch of spurious arguments about independence, some users !voting multiple times (Bearian), and a lot of people not respecting the work Rybkovich put into the article, which is clearly idiosyncratic but appears a labor of love. Jclemens (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that the new AFD that JClemens mentions should be tasked to exhaust the alternatives before jumping to deletion or deletion-by-redirection. IMV the right solution would be to make a spinout article from Berkeley Student Collective, called something like Houses of the Berkeley Student Collective, where this content and the massive, inappropriate table in the BSC article can all be retained.—S Marshall T/C 09:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. I agree with Jclemens that there are substantial enough changes to the article for Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion not to apply. Another AfD or talk page discussion should be required before the article is redirected again. I agree with S Marshall that a spinout article titled "Houses of the Berkeley Student Collective" may be the best way to present all of this material.

  Cunard (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]