< February 2024	Deletion review archives	April 2024 >

Little to any actual policy-based reasoning was used in this discussion, nor had any discussion taken place concerning the actual contents of the article-- the nominator simply compared the name of the article and proposed redirect target with the names of another article and redirect, and of the only two participants, one merely gave a WP:PERNOM vote, while the other participant suggested that a mention within the new target article would suffice. Closing admin performed a WP:BLAR as per nom, without adding anything to the new target article as per the second participant. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a correctly closed seven-year-old discussion, what exactly are you asking us to do here? SportingFlyer T·C 13:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Reinstate the article? Er. I was told by @Thryduulf: over at RfD that this was the proper method of getting a previously-deleted-by-AfD article reinstated. Did I screw up here? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked closely enough at the AfD to realise it was that old and assumed it was recent. I have no further opinion on the merits or otherwise of overturning the decision. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon review, I would not reinstate the article which was deleted at AfD as is, so an endorse. I have no problem if you want to write a draft of a new article using better sources than the one in the redirected article, but I'm a bit concerned about WP:DICDEF here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closing correctly reflected consensus. And while three participants isn't much, we generally consider it to satisfy WP:QUORUM. But even if we treat this DRV as AfD round two, the provided sources do not confer enough notability to support a standalone article. That said, I do not object to any editor creating a "Luxury real estate" section in the redirect target, essentially treating the seven-year-old AfD result as a Merge rather than a redir. Owen× ☎ 14:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Closing admin) Eh, it's a consensus, but like the weakest consensus possible. Only a weak self-endorse on my part. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as correct interpretation of consensus. This article was redirected with minimal participation seven years ago, so I have no objection to restoration to a full article if (and only if) more information is available to give luxury real estate standalone notability (which I do not believe is the case), obviously subject to another AFD. Frank Anchor 14:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow re-creation. I was the person who first pointed out (at RfD) the flaws in the old AfD, though at this point there doesn't seem to be much to be gained from reopening this. It's a large industry that should have enough material to support notability for a stand-alone article, but the article as it stood before AfD did need improvement. The optimal course of action here I think would be to explicitly allow re-creation or restoration of the article (preferably with improved referencing), at the editor's own discretion. Without prejudice to a new AfD, of course. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Content is bad and redirection should not be undone. Additionally, I am against this topic as a standalone article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. This AfD was fine. The problem was obvious and needed no further comment.—Alalch E. 16:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and allow re-creation with prior review. There was no other way to close the discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and allow recreation, preferably via AfC draft so that a reviewer can look again throughly before it falls into the vicious cycle again. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and Allow Submission of Draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14 March 2024

13 March 2024

Priyanka Choudhary

She has attained WP:NACTOR with her roles in tv shows, films, web-series and music videos. She was the 2nd runner-up in the Indian popular reality show Big Boss (Season 16) which makes it fit to create an article for her.

The most important point to be noted is that her co-stars Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia and Isha Malviya have wikipedia articles even though they have lesser significant roles than Priyanka.
- So can we please create an article for Priyanka Choudhary?117.246.80.237 (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Subject is listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests. There is a history of the gaming of titles by changing the spelling or form of her name. There is a history of sockpuppetry attempting to recreate articles on the subject. This request by an IP is no exception. The title is not salted either in article space or in draft space, although maybe it should be, so the appellant can create and submit a draft, but they probably know that the AFC reviewers will be wary. There was nothing wrong with either of the two AFDs, and her fans are doing her no good by making another tendentious request. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is that the correct outcome for the discussion, my sense is the requesting IP may be evading a block. SportingFlyer T·C 09:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not a sockpuppet who is evading block. You can check my edit history.117.242.82.161 (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history shows that the appellant is submitting from an IPv4 address that does not have any previous edit history, which proves only that they are an IPv4 address, and that IPv4 addresses often shift because they are managed dynamically by ISPs. In case anyone hasn't noticed, IPv4 addresses have been exhausted, and so have to be managed dynamically by ISPs. Why are you editing logged out? Why don't you register an account (which, if pseudonymous, is more secure than editing logged out), or why don't you use your existing account? Rather than being a block-evading sockpuppet, the appellant may be a pop-up, an editor who shows up for the first time because they were canvassed on some other web site. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I agree I am a fan of Priyanka which is why it hurts me that actresses like Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia and Isha Malviya who didn't pass WP:NACTOR have a Wikipedia page but Priyanka doesn't.117.242.82.161 (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isha Malviya's page is already nominated for deletion, can anyone here who knows how to nominate a page for deletion can do the same for Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia too?117.242.82.161 (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation and relist - I think that's the bare minimum that can be done since Priyanka passes WP:NACTOR. 117.242.82.161 (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not allow a redirect to Bigg Boss (Hindi season 16) where she is mentioned? Google news suggests there may be enough to write an article about her, no matter how annoying fans may have been in the past... Jclemens (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point, why not allow a recreation when the actress has passed WP: NACTOR and has everything required to have an independent article. Why are we denied recreation all because of some unpleasant experiences from her fans earlier? 117.209.172.233 (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, per /Perennial requests. Any article that has reached the level of a listing there has been discussed at very great length and the standard at that point is that a request from an established, high-volume editor presenting a well-sourced draft is the hurdle to be reached for us to reconsider it. This is not setting different standards per topic, it is setting a basic level of respect and consideration for people's time. A request from an IP with no edit history, presenting no sources, and just asserting the standards are met isn't going to cut it. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can present a full fledged resourced article of Priyanka Choudhary if we are allowed to do it. Which is why I have asked for Allow recreation and relist. We could have already done ✅ it and shown to you because the topic is not salted. But we didn't do it because of the number of times it has been deleted and huge number controversies surrounding the article.

Please please please give us a chance to recreate the article.117.209.172.233 (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing whatsoever prevents you from drafting an article in a user sandbox. Mainspace and draftspace may be denied by past bad behavior, but I don't see how or why user sandbox space would be. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be very honest Sir/Ma'am. We had no idea about user sandbox. But now that you suggested it we will surely try it. Thanks a lot 😊.117.246.253.49 (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I am using we instead of I because we are a group of 5 editor friends who create new articles of Indian Television actors and actresses. We have come earlier for the DRV of several actors. I edit anonymously using IP because I am comfortable with that. However, one among the 5 of us has an account. If required we can ask her to come her to come here using the account.117.209.172.233 (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse existing status. NACTOR is not passed by having roles, it's passed by receiving reliable source coverage about those performances, so just arguing that she's passed NACTOR without showing the sourcing is not on. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We will create her article in user sandbox and show it to you how she passes WP:NACTOR. 117.246.253.49 (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to all editors and closing admin- @Jclemens:,@Bearcat: I have created the WP:BLP of Priyanka in my user sandbox here [1] with reliable source coverage such that it proves Priyanka Choudhary passes WP:NACTOR. I kindly request you all to go through the same.

It is proved in the article that Priyanka passes WP:NACTOR through her lead and significant roles in the TV shows Yeh Hai Chahatein, Udaariyaan, Savdhaan India – F.I.R, Bigg Boss 16 and the web series 3G Gaali Galoch Girls, Dus June Ki Raat. Plus, she had also appeared in over 15 Music videos which should count too.117.246.253.49 (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. Annamalai (I.P.S)

So this is a my first time doing this so tell me if im wrong, but the article (prior version) Draft:K. Annamalai was deleted, and the outcome was endorsed. As a draft has been re-created, an endorsement of the draft is required from DRV (if I understand correctly). So, endorse re-creation of draft or no? Geardona (talk to me?) 02:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

previous DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 2#Annamalai Kuppusamy
Filer is a new page reviewer. Annamalai Kuppusamy and K. Annamalai (I.P.S) are salted/blacklisted. This is submission of a draft to DRV for a review: Per Sandstein's close, DRV should decide if there exists a draft that is "competent" (prima facie worthy of a review) and suitable for acceptance, as a basis for allowing recreation. I formatted the malformed request.—Alalch E. 10:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
K. Annamalai is not the same person as the K. Annamalai from Draft:K. Annamalai.—Alalch E. 11:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Salting or Reject Draft, depending on what we are being asked and how to phrase our reply. As an AFC reviewer, I see two blatant problems with this draft. First, it is clearly written to ((praise)) its subject rather than to describe them neutrally. Second, it has been reference-bombed. For these reasons, reviewers should not spend any significant time reviewing it, and nothing should be said that might encourage the submitter to waste both their time and that of the reviewers. This does not mean that the subject is not notable or that the subject is notable. It is not feasible for reviewers to determine whether the subject is notable, because the draft is not prima facie worthy of a detailed review. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse salting and reject draft, this is still not a 'competent draft' in my opinion. The draft creator (note not the DRV filer) is the same single-purpose account that submitted it last time, and then bludgeoned the discussion so badly. There are the ongoing faults regarding notability displayed in the draft, neutrality, and an overwhelming sense that there may be an undisclosed conflict of interest at play here. Daniel (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12 March 2024

11 March 2024

10 March 2024

Dr. Squatch

No clear consensus reached, but a few editors made excellent points, I believe this should be relisted one more time and reviewed 108.49.72.125 (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We generally never relist an AFD discussion more than 3 times and, in fact, there are editors who argue that a deletion discussions shouldn't be relisted more than twice. I can't imagine any of our closers relisting this discussion a 4th time unless it was a mistake. I see that you wanted this article deleted but you didn't put forward a very strong or persuasive argument for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Liz. (participant) Mach61 05:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Liz above. Clear case of "No Consensus". I am not convinced that the second and third relists were necessary or helpful. It is very rare fir decisive comments to come in after the first few weeks. It's usually better to just renominate in 6 months. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse. The appellant presents no valid argument for relisting. In fact, if, as they say, No clear consensus reached after three relistings, then a No consensus close was the only correct option. Owen× ☎ 08:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. Liz's close wasn't improper, and it should not have been relisted, but a detailed reading of a poor discussion shows WP:NCORP was not met. (I understand a possible remedy is to endorse the close and quickly re-nominate.) SportingFlyer T·C 11:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer I very much did/do still think HighKing's argument was flawed, but I didn't respond twice because I knew that it was unlikely a "delete" close would occur. If you feel this strongly about the article, just renominate in two months. Mach61 13:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument was that a company doesn't fall under NCORP, though, which is on its face incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 15:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, discussion had tapered off and there was no indication a fourth relist (about which I agree with Liz), would bring about a consensus. You can re-nominate it and make a stronger case for why it should be deleted, which may engender more input. Star Mississippi 20:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep Mach61's source table showed two independent reliable sources, which meets GNG, which means it's notable: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1) It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and 2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. I keep saying this, as this error seems to crop up every few months, but the NCORP-trumps-GNG crowd have not yet changed the guideline to their preferred narrative, so existing policy clearly still applies. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a crazy interpretation. NCORP isn't actually stricter than the GNG, but it applies stricter standards to the sources used to source articles about companies. Neither of those sources come close to meeting NCORP. One of them - the Forbes one - doesn't even meet GNG. But I guess this is an argument for another deletion discussion... SportingFlyer T·C 09:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that "isn't actually stricter" and "applies stricter standards to the sources" are contradictory, right? I don't think that sort of a disconnect is a good basis for calling my interpretation crazy. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's only contradictory if you want it to be. It "isn't actually stricter" applies to the fact that NCORP doesn't add any *additional* requirements - the requirements are the same, but refined for companies/organizations. It applies "stricter standards" means that because of a company's ability to generate PR and issue announcements that are then regurgitated by press, etc, we need to carefully scrutinise the content. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So PR and issue announcements are allowed by the GNG, but not NCORP? News to me. Why don't we just require independent RS's in the GNG? Oh wait... we have for the ~18 years I've been around, so I have no idea how what you just said reflects our policies. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not a proper interpretation of the relationship between GNG and NCORP. Jclemens has trotted this argument out previously and it has been rebutted each time. NCORP is simply the guideline under which GNG is implemented for companies and organizations, you can't say something "meets GNG" and "fails NCORP" because they're the same thing. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm wrong, go change the portion of policy I quoted to make it abundantly clear that you're correct and I'm wrong, and let's see if that change sticks. Until then, I will continue pointing out that your argument is wrong. Also, please note that not only is SportingFlyer's argument inconsistent with itself, it's also inconsistent with yours. So yeah, not too worried that the two of you are opposing the plain text of the notability guideline with orthogonal rationales. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong and the policies don't need changing. I'm not going to bother pointing you to the numerous discussions where this has already been decided, you've been around a long time, you can figure it out yourself I'm sure. If you think you're right, go open (yet another) discussion on this same topic and I'm sure we'll get to the exact same answers and reach the same conclusion. Ping me if you do. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is a thing, especially among people who have a very negative view of corporations and would like to weaponize notability guidelines to treat them unequally. I'm sure there have been plenty of discussions attended by people who view the problem as you do. I'm sure that those discussions have not changed N or the GNG as I note that it must logically be in order for an SNG to limit how the GNG is applied. I know your perspective, I don't agree with it, and I can do this all day. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a comment about relistings, it's a mixed bag. Sometimes no new editors show up after a discussion has been relisted but I also know a) there are some editors who only comment on relisted discussions (and I am grateful for them) and b) it doesn't happen a lot, but I have seen a discussion relisted three times and suddenly 3 or 4 editors show up to offer their assessents on the article and its sources and a consensus is reached. So, sometimes relistings are necessary to come to a valid consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The overall level of discussion was poor and while Liz could have decided it as a Delete based on weighing arguments/guidelines, equally there's an argument for "no consensus" for the same reasons. Don't see much of an argument to Keep though but contributors at AfD would be better served to comment on sources rather than making generic comments. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing using primary sources is what defines a secondary source. … Mach61 23:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC) indicates that nothing Mach61 write can be trusted. That statement is overconfident and utter rubbish. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the two sources in the WP:SIRS table, the first is painfully obviously nonindependent.

The second is less obvious. It smells of promotion. HighKing’s criticism seems fair. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator should be WP:SLAPped for the extremely poor nomination. It being a proxy nomination is no excuse. Such weak nominations lead to trainwreck AfDs. Nominations should be strong and compelling, not “bit spotty”, and “the company itself isn't that notable aswell”.

Endorse “no consensus”. Read advice at WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - There is clearly not consensus to delete the article despite the AFD being listed for a month. Constructive arguments were made on both sides of the discussion and relisting for a fourth time (a process that is almost never done) would likely not sway consensus either way. I recommend the DRV nominator (or another interested party) follow the steps at WP:RENOM if they wish to re-nominate this article at least two months after the DRV closure. Frank Anchor 13:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I will observe that there is one !vote to Overturn to Keep and one !vote to Overturn to Delete. That means that those who disagree with the close also disagree as to how it should have been closed differently. I will also comment that No Consensus is not a conclusion that anyone likes, and so some editors always have some ideas on how a consensus should have been worked out, but sometimes it is just realistic to recognize that there is no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. WP:RELIST is clear that two relists is the recommended maximum. We don't keep spinning the relist wheel until there's a different answer. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. HighKing was and is correct about NCORP not being met but it was reasonable to close as no consensus regardless. NCORP has a protective role and is important for maintaining Wikipedia's reputability. Sometimes, when its criteria aren't met and an article is kept is spite of that, it will be the case that the community failed to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The other times when its criteria aren't met and an article is kept, it will be the case only that an article on a non-notable topic has remained a part of the encyclopedia, which isn't unusual or terrible. With regard to this article, it's the latter more innocent scenario, and enforcing removal of this NCORP-failing content isn't crucial. This is because this is a highly visible company which had placed a Super Bowl ad, advertises and markets its products rather aggressively, gets written about in various outlets even if not in a way that suits our purposes, and a Wikipedia article does not meaningfully increase its visibility, and some neutral content can be written about it. But if the content was bad and the company had low visibility I would have voted to overturn in this DRV, because it would have been a concerning failure of the process.—Alalch E. 09:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9 March 2024

8 March 2024

7 March 2024

Schulze STV – The community endorses the close as "no consensus", but agrees that any editor may convert it to a "redirect" outcome on their own authority. In my fifteen-plus years at deletion review, I've seen DRV overturn a "no consensus" close only a handful of times, and I think there's scope for a separate discussion on whether we're a bit too sympathetic to "no consensus" closes.—S Marshall T/C 08:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Schulze STV (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The only 'Keep' !vote was from an obvious SPA COI account - MarkusSchulze - the same Markus Schulze after whom the article is named. This !vote should have been stricken out, or at least discarded, leaving just the nom and my Redirect views, either of which would have been preferable to the No consensus non-admin close. Owen× ☎ 14:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Relist Difficult one because only three users voted, including one SPI and one user whose sixth edit was to send this to AfD. This isn't one for a non-admin to close, because a non-admin could not delete the article. If this is relisted, after looking at the article, I'd be happy to add an additional !vote which could help gain a better consensus here? SportingFlyer T·C 14:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Thank you! That would help. Owen× ☎ 14:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] No worries. For the purposes of clarity for the rest of the discussion, I think any close is a WP:BADNAC where delete is a valid option for the closer, even though putting the discussion out of its slow misery as a no consensus is far from the worst thing that has ever happened on this site. SportingFlyer T·C 14:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as closer. The rough consensus that I could see was split between nom and redirect, which was in place for two whole weeks with no comments from the community. I have seen sysops closing discussions like this with almost the same closing note as mine. Hence, I took that stand. Now, as per SF, BADNAC is present which I fail to see. I can indeed close a discussion as no consensus without the mop, right? Also, OwenX could have pinged me on the talk page or dropped a discussion on my talk (per WP:DELREVD) and after a discussion I'd have happily reopened and relisted this without a DRV. Not something I expected from an admin to bypass the discussion (where it was possible) and starting a DRV right away. Nevertheless, if this DRV gets a relist consensus, I will also participate in the AfD to help it gain clearer consensus. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) I can see SF's point now. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Weak endorse or relist (I oppose an overturn to redirect). There is no WP:QUORUM to take action despite the discussion having already been relisted twice. While two users voting to not keep could have allowed for the redirect equivalent of a soft delete, the full article is to be restored upon any request, in this case, MarkusSchulze's "keep" !vote. A third relist to attempt to gain consensus is an okay option as well (especially with this DRV providing more visibility), but certainly not necessary. Frank Anchor 14:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note, my !vote was modified to include underlined text. Frank Anchor 15:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Are we really obliged to restore a soft-deleted page based on the request of a SPA/COI account related to it? We'd normally topic-ban MarkusSchulze from articles about himself or his work. I agree about QUORUM; another relist will hopefully resolve that. Owen× ☎ 15:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Probably not, but I consider this to be a valid post unless and until a topic ban is enacted. Frank Anchor 17:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I admit mine is an IAR !vote, but there's no quorum needed for a redirect. You or I or anyone else could do it unilaterally, so that's just bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy IMO. Honest question, assuming anyone did it following a re-close. Would you object because it wasn't the outcome? Star Mississippi 15:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] This is a very good question. However, based on some below endorsement of the NC close, even if my own weak endorsement is ignored, it appears that redirecting without a quorum at the AFD is not the best idea at this time. Added exposure from this DRV means the AFD is more likely to have additional votes if it is relisted than otherwise would have been the case, so I do not consider that to be bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy Frank Anchor 16:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I would love it if Added exposure from this DRV means the AFD is more likely to have additional votes is the case. Because the reality is regardless of how this or the AfD actually closes, there isn't a consensus (real world -- not necessarily Wikipedia Speak) which means it will come back around and is a very niche topic, which means participation will be a challenge regardless of whether we get an uptick in AfD participation. Star Mississippi 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Sure, anyone can change the article to a redirect. The COI will then promptly revert that change, and we'll be right back where we started. With an article like this, a discussion on its Talk page will rarely get much interest. This DRV brought more attention to this article (and to the SPA) than any editorial discussion would. The outcome we reach here (or in a subsequent AfD) can be enforced, whereas me unilaterally blanking the article into a redirect cannot. Owen× ☎ 18:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Weak endorse There is an upper limit on the number of relists. My suggestion is to gain consensus on the talk page for a redirect (or bring this back to AfD for a new [and cleaner] discussion). --Enos733 (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to Single transferable vote per IAR since this isn't AfDx2. We really don't need seven days here or more there to enact an close that can be done by any editor, admin or not when it's a topic of minimal interest/engagement. I understand why The Herald closed this as they did and I don't disagree with it. Star Mississippi 18:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Redirect per Star Mississippi. I'm worried that there could be a reduction of interest in AfDs, and that this AfD is a symptom of that. This isn't "things functioning as they should".—Alalch E. 19:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Alalch E. (and any other interested editors) are welcome to join User_talk:Star_Mississippi#AFDs where we've been addressing this absent a good idea on where this meta conversation should happen. Open too to suggestions on where this conversation should happen. Star Mississippi 23:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Endorse no consensus close. No WP:COIEDIT violation for participating in an AfD with a COI, (which someone should probably look into changing) but neither does a no consensus close bar further editorial action including the unilateral redirection discussed above. Jclemens (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to Redirect to Single transferable vote. Where it was already mentioned. WP:SLAP the nom for nominating an article in the basis of some disputed facts and ignoring the lack of any independent references. Unusual nominator has a redlinked talk page and 45 edits, but seems legit. The COI editor’s vote must be downweighted, but in the end, the topic is not independently notable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] On the basis of what policy is a COI editor's vote to be downweighted? What level of proof is appropriate for a closer to so weight a vote? Jclemens (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia-Notability. Despite, contrary to, the very poor nomination, the entire problem with the draft is Wikipedia-notability. There are zero notability attesting references, nor other sources that I can find. By the requirement that evidence of notability has to come from independent sources, a !vote for notability of the article, but the author of the topic and the three references, can’t count for much. This is the most extreme case of non-commercial non-independence I have ever seen. ”Proof” is not required, non-denial is sufficient, but seriously, have you looked at the article title, the user’s name, and the three references? Markus is to be respected for his transparency. Schulze STV belongs in the scope of STV, obviously, unless there is a good reason to spin it out, which there isn’t. The new editor’s objection to this in the AfD come from a very narrow perspective. A better perspective is whether the method involves transfers of single votes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I don’t think there is any need to couch my position in WP:COI. Markus’ COI declaration is so clear and obvious that I don’t agree that there is any conflict here. Transparency is a good solution to COI concerns. The question merely goes to independence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] So changing "The COI editor’s" to "Markus'" in your original statement would be equivalent? That is, you want it downweighted not on a COI basis, but because the argument was poor? That didn't seem like the most obvious way to read your original comment. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Yes, you’re right, I should not have written “the COI editor”, but “the involved editor”, where “involved” means not “involved in the article” but “involved in the topic”. I feel the word “conflict” doesn’t fit quite right. I think his argument is partly poor (“it is cited”) and partly vague assertion (“frequently mentioned in discussions”). The vague assertion comes down to trust in a user making an unsubstantiated assertion that might go to Wikipedia-Notability, but because he is involved with the topic, he is not independent, and his very weak assertion should be given no benefit of the doubt because he is not independent. In the end, all sources utterly fail the independence clause of the GNG, starting with the three references, and including the single “keep” !voter. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as No Consensus. There was inadequate !voting, only one independent !vote to Redirect and one !vote that has been discussed at length as involved. Redirect would also have been a valid close, but No Consensus was a valid close, and permits a renomination in two months. No one likes No Consensus, but sometimes it is easier to try again in two months than to put Cinderella's slipper on someone else. We might find Cinderella in two months. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Schulze STV – The community endorses the close as "no consensus", but agrees that any editor may convert it to a "redirect" outcome on their own authority. In my fifteen-plus years at deletion review, I've seen DRV overturn a "no consensus" close only a handful of times, and I think there's scope for a separate discussion on whether we're a bit too sympathetic to "no consensus" closes.—S Marshall T/C 08:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The only 'Keep' !vote was from an obvious SPA COI account - MarkusSchulze - the same Markus Schulze after whom the article is named. This !vote should have been stricken out, or at least discarded, leaving just the nom and my Redirect views, either of which would have been preferable to the No consensus non-admin close. Owen× ☎ 14:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Difficult one because only three users voted, including one SPI and one user whose sixth edit was to send this to AfD. This isn't one for a non-admin to close, because a non-admin could not delete the article. If this is relisted, after looking at the article, I'd be happy to add an additional !vote which could help gain a better consensus here? SportingFlyer T·C 14:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That would help. Owen× ☎ 14:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. For the purposes of clarity for the rest of the discussion, I think any close is a WP:BADNAC where delete is a valid option for the closer, even though putting the discussion out of its slow misery as a no consensus is far from the worst thing that has ever happened on this site. SportingFlyer T·C 14:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. The rough consensus that I could see was split between nom and redirect, which was in place for two whole weeks with no comments from the community. I have seen sysops closing discussions like this with almost the same closing note as mine. Hence, I took that stand. Now, as per SF, BADNAC is present which I fail to see. I can indeed close a discussion as no consensus without the mop, right? Also, OwenX could have pinged me on the talk page or dropped a discussion on my talk (per WP:DELREVD) and after a discussion I'd have happily reopened and relisted this without a DRV. Not something I expected from an admin to bypass the discussion (where it was possible) and starting a DRV right away. Nevertheless, if this DRV gets a relist consensus, I will also participate in the AfD to help it gain clearer consensus. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I can see SF's point now. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak endorse or relist (I oppose an overturn to redirect). There is no WP:QUORUM to take action despite the discussion having already been relisted twice. While two users voting to not keep could have allowed for the redirect equivalent of a soft delete, the full article is to be restored upon any request, in this case, MarkusSchulze's "keep" !vote. A third relist to attempt to gain consensus is an okay option as well (especially with this DRV providing more visibility), but certainly not necessary. Frank Anchor 14:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, my !vote was modified to include underlined text. Frank Anchor 15:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really obliged to restore a soft-deleted page based on the request of a SPA/COI account related to it? We'd normally topic-ban MarkusSchulze from articles about himself or his work. I agree about QUORUM; another relist will hopefully resolve that. Owen× ☎ 15:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, but I consider this to be a valid post unless and until a topic ban is enacted. Frank Anchor 17:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I admit mine is an IAR !vote, but there's no quorum needed for a redirect. You or I or anyone else could do it unilaterally, so that's just bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy IMO. Honest question, assuming anyone did it following a re-close. Would you object because it wasn't the outcome? Star Mississippi 15:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good question. However, based on some below endorsement of the NC close, even if my own weak endorsement is ignored, it appears that redirecting without a quorum at the AFD is not the best idea at this time. Added exposure from this DRV means the AFD is more likely to have additional votes if it is relisted than otherwise would have been the case, so I do not consider that to be bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy Frank Anchor 16:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would love it if Added exposure from this DRV means the AFD is more likely to have additional votes is the case. Because the reality is regardless of how this or the AfD actually closes, there isn't a consensus (real world -- not necessarily Wikipedia Speak) which means it will come back around and is a very niche topic, which means participation will be a challenge regardless of whether we get an uptick in AfD participation. Star Mississippi 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, anyone can change the article to a redirect. The COI will then promptly revert that change, and we'll be right back where we started. With an article like this, a discussion on its Talk page will rarely get much interest. This DRV brought more attention to this article (and to the SPA) than any editorial discussion would. The outcome we reach here (or in a subsequent AfD) can be enforced, whereas me unilaterally blanking the article into a redirect cannot. Owen× ☎ 18:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse There is an upper limit on the number of relists. My suggestion is to gain consensus on the talk page for a redirect (or bring this back to AfD for a new [and cleaner] discussion). --Enos733 (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Single transferable vote per IAR since this isn't AfDx2. We really don't need seven days here or more there to enact an close that can be done by any editor, admin or not when it's a topic of minimal interest/engagement. I understand why The Herald closed this as they did and I don't disagree with it. Star Mississippi 18:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Star Mississippi. I'm worried that there could be a reduction of interest in AfDs, and that this AfD is a symptom of that. This isn't "things functioning as they should".—Alalch E. 19:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E. (and any other interested editors) are welcome to join User_talk:Star_Mississippi#AFDs where we've been addressing this absent a good idea on where this meta conversation should happen. Open too to suggestions on where this conversation should happen. Star Mississippi 23:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus close. No WP:COIEDIT violation for participating in an AfD with a COI, (which someone should probably look into changing) but neither does a no consensus close bar further editorial action including the unilateral redirection discussed above. Jclemens (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to Redirect to Single transferable vote. Where it was already mentioned. WP:SLAP the nom for nominating an article in the basis of some disputed facts and ignoring the lack of any independent references. Unusual nominator has a redlinked talk page and 45 edits, but seems legit.

The COI editor’s vote must be downweighted, but in the end, the topic is not independently notable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of what policy is a COI editor's vote to be downweighted? What level of proof is appropriate for a closer to so weight a vote? Jclemens (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia-Notability. Despite, contrary to, the very poor nomination, the entire problem with the draft is Wikipedia-notability. There are zero notability attesting references, nor other sources that I can find. By the requirement that evidence of notability has to come from independent sources, a !vote for notability of the article, but the author of the topic and the three references, can’t count for much.

This is the most extreme case of non-commercial non-independence I have ever seen.

”Proof” is not required, non-denial is sufficient, but seriously, have you looked at the article title, the user’s name, and the three references?

Markus is to be respected for his transparency. Schulze STV belongs in the scope of STV, obviously, unless there is a good reason to spin it out, which there isn’t. The new editor’s objection to this in the AfD come from a very narrow perspective. A better perspective is whether the method involves transfers of single votes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think there is any need to couch my position in WP:COI. Markus’ COI declaration is so clear and obvious that I don’t agree that there is any conflict here. Transparency is a good solution to COI concerns. The question merely goes to independence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So changing "The COI editor’s" to "Markus'" in your original statement would be equivalent? That is, you want it downweighted not on a COI basis, but because the argument was poor? That didn't seem like the most obvious way to read your original comment. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you’re right, I should not have written “the COI editor”, but “the involved editor”, where “involved” means not “involved in the article” but “involved in the topic”. I feel the word “conflict” doesn’t fit quite right.

I think his argument is partly poor (“it is cited”) and partly vague assertion (“frequently mentioned in discussions”). The vague assertion comes down to trust in a user making an unsubstantiated assertion that might go to Wikipedia-Notability, but because he is involved with the topic, he is not independent, and his very weak assertion should be given no benefit of the doubt because he is not independent.

In the end, all sources utterly fail the independence clause of the GNG, starting with the three references, and including the single “keep” !voter. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as No Consensus. There was inadequate !voting, only one independent !vote to Redirect and one !vote that has been discussed at length as involved. Redirect would also have been a valid close, but No Consensus was a valid close, and permits a renomination in two months. No one likes No Consensus, but sometimes it is easier to try again in two months than to put Cinderella's slipper on someone else. We might find Cinderella in two months. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Four song cover images – Request withdrawn by applicant. Daniel (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Stayed Gone Song Cover Image.jpeg (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) File:Hell's Greatest Dad Song Cover Image.jpeg (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) File:Loser, Baby Song Cover Image.jpeg (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) File:Poison Song Cover Image.jpeg (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Wrong assessment. Majority was "Delete", however, further reading would show that it was "delete" in terms of it not being a cover and it being used in the "cover" parameter, not that the images themselves needed "deletion". This even was stated by the nominator, who withdrew their !vote after the issue was fixed and this was stated as well by other editors, who focused on the images not being covers (i.e. not in a "cover=" parameter) and not that the images needed deleted. I request a reassessment of present !votes from that discussion. From a personal assessment, I see 2 Keep !votes, 1 true "Delete" !vote, 1 half true "delete"/half "parameter delete" and 3 "parameter delete" !votes. There is no full consensus at all for straight deletion. In fact, since the 3 "parameter delete" !vote are not in support of a true deletion, there would be a consensus to keep the file. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as a valid assessment of consensus by the closer. The appellant appears to be saying that the closer should have applied complicated weighing. Maybe that would have been another valid assessment by the closer. But the closer wasn't wrong in applying more straightforward reasoning. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Endorse all of these - FfD is the most argument-based part of the website in terms of consensus, and the arguments these files need to be deleted are far stronger on copyright reasons than those supporting keeping them. SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Question - When there is a bundled XFD nomination in which the same close was made for all items, and the appellant has the same issue for all of the items, is there such a thing as a bundled DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I have taken the liberty of merging the four nominations into one, as they make substantively the same arguments and it is likely all four will stand or fall on the same basis. At the time of this merger, the four nomination statements were identical, with the same comment on each by Robert McClenon, the "endorse all" by SportingFlyer on the first of the four nominations, and the question by Robert McClenon on the fourth of the four. This appears to me to be reasonable and sensible, but it does not prevent contributors from recommending different outcomes for each file. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Endorse all per Robert McClenon. Valid reading of consensus by the closer, and no failure to follow deletion process has been identified. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Question for endorsers, as acknowledged by Robert McClenon, the argument made could have been another valid closure. Under that ground, would it be a violation to actually re-upload those images, even as valid non-free-use files, as acknowledged by the majority consensus? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Comment as closer - The arguments basically boiled down to whether these were useful covers (WP:NFCC#8) and my assessment of the arguments in the discussion were that consensus was that they did not meet it and so delete. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Consensus is clear for this being a good closure, so I withdraw my deletion review request. I shall re-upload the images, as consensus (even here) seems ok with them being non-free images, just not covers under NFCC#8. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Four song cover images – Request withdrawn by applicant. Daniel (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wrong assessment. Majority was "Delete", however, further reading would show that it was "delete" in terms of it not being a cover and it being used in the "cover" parameter, not that the images themselves needed "deletion". This even was stated by the nominator, who withdrew their !vote after the issue was fixed and this was stated as well by other editors, who focused on the images not being covers (i.e. not in a "cover=" parameter) and not that the images needed deleted. I request a reassessment of present !votes from that discussion. From a personal assessment, I see 2 Keep !votes, 1 true "Delete" !vote, 1 half true "delete"/half "parameter delete" and 3 "parameter delete" !votes. There is no full consensus at all for straight deletion. In fact, since the 3 "parameter delete" !vote are not in support of a true deletion, there would be a consensus to keep the file. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as a valid assessment of consensus by the closer. The appellant appears to be saying that the closer should have applied complicated weighing. Maybe that would have been another valid assessment by the closer. But the closer wasn't wrong in applying more straightforward reasoning. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse all of these - FfD is the most argument-based part of the website in terms of consensus, and the arguments these files need to be deleted are far stronger on copyright reasons than those supporting keeping them. SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - When there is a bundled XFD nomination in which the same close was made for all items, and the appellant has the same issue for all of the items, is there such a thing as a bundled DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty of merging the four nominations into one, as they make substantively the same arguments and it is likely all four will stand or fall on the same basis. At the time of this merger, the four nomination statements were identical, with the same comment on each by Robert McClenon, the "endorse all" by SportingFlyer on the first of the four nominations, and the question by Robert McClenon on the fourth of the four. This appears to me to be reasonable and sensible, but it does not prevent contributors from recommending different outcomes for each file. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse all per Robert McClenon. Valid reading of consensus by the closer, and no failure to follow deletion process has been identified. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question for endorsers, as acknowledged by Robert McClenon, the argument made could have been another valid closure. Under that ground, would it be a violation to actually re-upload those images, even as valid non-free-use files, as acknowledged by the majority consensus? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as closer - The arguments basically boiled down to whether these were useful covers (WP:NFCC#8) and my assessment of the arguments in the discussion were that consensus was that they did not meet it and so delete. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is clear for this being a good closure, so I withdraw my deletion review request. I shall re-upload the images, as consensus (even here) seems ok with them being non-free images, just not covers under NFCC#8. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 March 2024

Paul Richman – Outside the scope of DRV. Daniel (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Paul Richman (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`XfD`\|`restore) User:Fhektii recently created an account, performed almost 200 edits in 2 days focused entirely on nominating articles for AfD and tagging ((coi)) on random articles, and then was indefinitely banned. I am concerned about drive-by nominations. Particularly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Richman where the reason given is Claim that he is a IEEE fellow is not verified when the article has a reference for the claim. It may very well be that these articles deserve to be deleted, I don't know, but at least some of them should be rejected due to them not being created in good faith. Mokadoshi (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Procedural close. This AFD was open at the time the DRV was filed and since procedurally closed (by me) as the nominator and only supporter of deletion was indefinitely blocked. I would close this DRV myself but do not know how to close DRV's. Also, Mokadoshi should note that DRV is for challenging the result of an AFD, not challenging the presence of an AFD (that is done by voting "keep" at an AFD, or noting the reasons why the nomination is invalid in the case of a blocked/banned user). Frank Anchor 18:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Paul Richman – Outside the scope of DRV. Daniel (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Fhektii recently created an account, performed almost 200 edits in 2 days focused entirely on nominating articles for AfD and tagging ((coi)) on random articles, and then was indefinitely banned. I am concerned about drive-by nominations. Particularly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Richman where the reason given is Claim that he is a IEEE fellow is not verified when the article has a reference for the claim. It may very well be that these articles deserve to be deleted, I don't know, but at least some of them should be rejected due to them not being created in good faith. Mokadoshi (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. This AFD was open at the time the DRV was filed and since procedurally closed (by me) as the nominator and only supporter of deletion was indefinitely blocked. I would close this DRV myself but do not know how to close DRV's. Also, Mokadoshi should note that DRV is for challenging the result of an AFD, not challenging the presence of an AFD (that is done by voting "keep" at an AFD, or noting the reasons why the nomination is invalid in the case of a blocked/banned user). Frank Anchor 18:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 March 2024

4 March 2024

Sills Cummis & Gross – Speedily endorsed. There is clear consensus from the previous DRV (and this one) that the close was appropriate. Editors continue to feel that the nominator is taking tenditious actions as a result of their conflict of interest with the subject. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sills Cummis & Gross (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) We kindly request the community reconsider the deletion of the Sills Cummis Wikipedia page. Per the [notability guidelines], “Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published – even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet….” Therefore, for your consideration, below are additional published articles about/involving Sills Cummis that we believe establish the Firm’s notability per Wikipedia standards. • https://njbiz.com/sills-cummis-expands-price-gouging-practice/ • https://books.google.com/books/content?id=_r9Ni6_u0JEC&pg=PA743&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U1QHYqydeehq01sMlLa2S2v8r66LA&w=1280 • https://njbmagazine.com/monthly-articles/newark-celebrates-350-years/ • https://www.law360.com/articles/552814/new-jersey-powerhouse-sills-cummis-gross • https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/nyregion/briefings-politics-verniero-joins-firm-with-democratic-ties.html?searchResultPosition=1 • https://www.nj.com/news/2022/06/no-need-for-attorney-review-on-real-estate-auctions-nj-supreme-court-rules.html •https://www.nj.com/business/2011/01/nj_wineries_will_go_to_court_t.html • https://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/21/nyregion/partnership-ends-feud-over-marcos-property.html?searchResultPosition=44 • https://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/20/realestate/marcos-holdings-shedding-web-of-intrigue.html?searchResultPosition=56 Gdavis22 (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] The close was just endorsed a couple weeks ago. Will still look through the sources. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I don't think there's a single article here which is either sufficiently secondary coverage (all press release churnalism or authored by someone at the firm) or significant coverage of the firm (lawyer representing someone in a case where the firm is just name dropped.) Would once again endorse deletion. See also WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer T·C 19:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Endorse. This is the second DRV for this AfD. The previous one was three weeks ago, by the same appellant, and was correctly summarily endorsed. I believe the appellant, an obvious SPA, is Mr. Giavonni Davis, the law firm's Marketing & Business Development Manager, making this a COI situation. Either way, these repeated, pointless DRVs for a clearly promotional article are disruptive. In addition to a speedy endorsement, I suggest the appellant be enjoined from any editing related to his (presumed) employer, including participation in AfDs and DRVs. Wikipedia isn't here to promote this law firm. Pinging Alalch E., Robert McClenon and Frank Anchor who participated in the previous DRV. Owen× ☎ 19:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Sills Cummis & Gross – Speedily endorsed. There is clear consensus from the previous DRV (and this one) that the close was appropriate. Editors continue to feel that the nominator is taking tenditious actions as a result of their conflict of interest with the subject. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

We kindly request the community reconsider the deletion of the Sills Cummis Wikipedia page. Per the [notability guidelines], “Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published – even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet….” Therefore, for your consideration, below are additional published articles about/involving Sills Cummis that we believe establish the Firm’s notability per Wikipedia standards.

• https://njbiz.com/sills-cummis-expands-price-gouging-practice/

• https://books.google.com/books/content?id=_r9Ni6_u0JEC&pg=PA743&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U1QHYqydeehq01sMlLa2S2v8r66LA&w=1280

• https://njbmagazine.com/monthly-articles/newark-celebrates-350-years/

• https://www.law360.com/articles/552814/new-jersey-powerhouse-sills-cummis-gross

• https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/nyregion/briefings-politics-verniero-joins-firm-with-democratic-ties.html?searchResultPosition=1

• https://www.nj.com/news/2022/06/no-need-for-attorney-review-on-real-estate-auctions-nj-supreme-court-rules.html

•https://www.nj.com/business/2011/01/nj_wineries_will_go_to_court_t.html

• https://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/21/nyregion/partnership-ends-feud-over-marcos-property.html?searchResultPosition=44

• https://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/20/realestate/marcos-holdings-shedding-web-of-intrigue.html?searchResultPosition=56 Gdavis22 (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The close was just endorsed a couple weeks ago. Will still look through the sources. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a single article here which is either sufficiently secondary coverage (all press release churnalism or authored by someone at the firm) or significant coverage of the firm (lawyer representing someone in a case where the firm is just name dropped.) Would once again endorse deletion. See also WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer T·C 19:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Endorse. This is the second DRV for this AfD. The previous one was three weeks ago, by the same appellant, and was correctly summarily endorsed. I believe the appellant, an obvious SPA, is Mr. Giavonni Davis, the law firm's Marketing & Business Development Manager, making this a COI situation. Either way, these repeated, pointless DRVs for a clearly promotional article are disruptive. In addition to a speedy endorsement, I suggest the appellant be enjoined from any editing related to his (presumed) employer, including participation in AfDs and DRVs. Wikipedia isn't here to promote this law firm. Pinging Alalch E., Robert McClenon and Frank Anchor who participated in the previous DRV. Owen× ☎ 19:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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