Hosta

Administrator instructions

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
• Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
• Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

• Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.

• Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).

• Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

Active discussions

7 July 2022

6 July 2022

Operation Balboa

Operation Balboa (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was previously nominated for a PROD and no policies were cited to support a redirect. The AfD ended with two votes after being relisted twice: one in favor of deletion and another in favor of a redirect. As the nominator of the AfD, I disagree with a redirect and believe the deletion should proceed. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse own close and slightly confused. NoonIcarus, in your own nom you essentially indicated a redirect Any noteworthy content is already covered in the United States–Venezuela relations#United States interference allegations section. There was no argument made against a redirect and it's a valid AtD. Star Mississippi 14:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - When the subject is mentioned at the proposed redirect target, a redirect is usually a good alternative to deletion. Also, the PROD that the appellant mentions was fourteen years ago, and hardly has any bearing on the current dispute. Redirect is the right conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak relist I think the close here wasn't a correct assessment of the deletion discussion so far – it was effectively being used as a supervote. On the other hand, I think that if the closer had posted a "redirect" opinion and left the AfD for someone else to close, it would probably have ended up being closed as "redirect" anyway after more opinions came in. So my view here is "technically we should relist this, in case there are stronger arguments against redirecting that were cut off by the supervote, but I suspect that doing so would in practice be a waste of AfD voters' time". Another possibility may be to relist at RfD, because the dispute here is mostly not about whether the article content should be kept, but about whether the redirect should be kept. --ais523 21:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • My close was eight days after the last input, so I don't think I cut off any forthcoming !votes. I don't think there's a particular interest in the subject, hence two relists and two !votes, but no objection to a relist if consensus thinks it would be helpful. Personally think your RfD idea would lead to more clear resolution for the reasons you said. Star Mississippi 21:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- There doesn't seem to be any good reason for this title not to redirect to an article where it is mentioned. Nor, as pointed out in the AfD, would there be a problem with retaining the article history underneath the redirect. Reyk _YO! 00:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Reyk's spot on here. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, reasonable outcome for me. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1 July 2022

Unaloto Feao

Unaloto Feao (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Both keep votes used rationale that is not applicable anymore (WP:NFOOTBALL). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. The keep !voters had neither a numerical majority nor any policy/guideline-based arguments at all, so I don't understand how the closer could have found a consensus to keep. Another week of discussion in the hope of attracting some additional participation would probably be the best idea. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per Extraordinary Writ.4meter4 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The deletes certainly could have been better explaining a bit more about why the existing sources are deficient or at least asserting they'd tried to find more sources. The keeps cite no "authority" for why their assertion that fact X rise to the level of notability and one contains a personal attack on the nominator. I really can't see how this rises to the level of keep. It seems either no-consensus or delete would be viable outcomes (I can't see how relisting would help). I don't see the point in overturning to no-consensus, so I'd just give it a few months and renominate. ----81.100.164.154 (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. The keep arguments are wholly rejected by our guidelines and should have been discarded. Relisting will allow others (e.g., me) to weigh in. JoelleJay (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as a better idea than No Consensus. There wasn't a valid consensus to Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would have closed as no consensus, but am OK with relisting. The keep !voters did not cite NFOOTBALL, so I don't know why that has been dragged in. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse 2-2 in a Nom-D-K-K order, with a full relist yielding only the final keep, shows a clear consensus trajectory. A relist or no consensus were both within discretion and I would have preferred them, but a keep is not unreasonable given this vote pattern. Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus or relist. No consensus would have been a better reflection of that XfD as none of the !voters provided any evidence for their assertions. The two keep comments assert that the delete comments are incorrect and nobody attempted to refute them. If the claims are verifiable (Tonga national football team#Player records makes the same claims, with a source, but that source appears to be showing something different now to what it did on the implied 2019 access date) then those advocating deletion should explain why they feel they are not sufficient for a stand-alone article and why the content shouldn't be merged somewhere and the title redirected. If they are not verifiable then that should have been pointed out. It seems unlikely that a nation's most successful player of the world's most popular sport has no significant coverage in any language, and there are lots of google hits so the delete !votes need more substance - e.g. are all the hits just stats? not independent? not reliable? rather than just a vague wave towards policies. The keep !votes didn't cite any policies or guidelines either (contrary to the nomination here) so they aren't strong either. So we have an equal number of equally weak keep and delete votes, I don't see how this can be anything other than no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. Per WP:LOCALCON, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. The result here does that; it overrides the consensus that football players are automatically notable, and that all sports articles require at least one example of WP:SIGCOV. As such, the arguments for keeping should have been dismissed, and the article instead deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What consensus? Two people said "X" without evidence, two people then said "not X" also without evidence. There was no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only one side needed to provide evidence, and they failed at that, so the consensus defaults to the other. Avilich (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, nominations for deletion are not fire and forget. Had anyone advocating deletion responded to the keep votes explaining why they don't think they were sufficient then it would be different but they didn't. If those advocating keep knew something more was expected of them then they would have had an opportunity to provide that. Also, consensus doesn't default to the other site - consensus discussions default to no consensus in the absence of a clear consensus either way, no consensus normally defaults to the status quo. In this case there was no consensus to either keep or delete, and no reason for no consensus to default to anything other than the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The delete side said the topic fails GNG, and the keep side did not argue the topic meets GNG, therefore the conclusion is that the topic fails GNG. Avilich (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The keep side implicitly argued that the topic met the GNG, even if they didn't say so specifically. Nobody even attempted to refute the assertions of the keep voters, no detail was provided of the assertions that it didn't meet the GNG so we have no way of knowing how much (if any) was put in to verify those assertions. So what we have is two sets of unproven assertions = no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so on the one hand you're claiming that arguments identical to those made when appealing to NFOOTY aren't explicitly invoking the deprecated guideline (and therefore...don't count as invalid?), and then on the other are assigning an implicit GNG-based rationale to those same editors??? JoelleJay (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have to look at the arguments presented in the discussion. The nomination cited the GNG. At the broadest level there are only two valid reasons to vote !keep in an AfD:

1. You believe the rationale given by the nominator is incorrect in some way, either generally or in relation to the article being considered.
2. Something has changed since the nomination such that it no longer applies.

If you believe the nominator is correct you !vote delete, redirect or merge. If you believe the nominator was incorrect but the article should not be kept for a different reason you !vote something other than "keep".

In the absence of any indication to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that someone voting !keep is doing so for reason 1, especially if there have been no significant changes to the article (as was the case for this article). So when the nomination cites failing to meet the GNG as the reason for deletion, a !vote to keep cannot logically mean anything other than "I believe the nominator is wrong and this article does meet the GNG" unless there is some statement to the contrary (which there clearly was not in this situation). When a policy or guideline is not mentioned in a discussion you cannot infer anything about how participants feel it relates to this discussion - nobody mentioned WP:V or WP:RS so we have no idea whether anybody thought they were relevant. Nobody mentioned NFOOTY so we have no idea whether anyone thought they were relevant, we don't even know whether all the participants were even aware that it existed, or if they did that it has been partially deprecated. The closer can only close based on what is present in the discussion, anything else is a supervote. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't say that the topic meets GNG, and even if they meant it, they should have been ignored because they gave no evidence that the topic meets GNG, or other consensus-approved guideline. What they did cite is the former NFOOTY guideline (without mentioning it by name); obviously they thought the criteria were relevant. Avilich (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They disagreed with the nominator, who said it didn't meet the GNG. The only way you can disagree with a nominator who says it doesn't meet the GNG is by believing it meets the GNG. They didn't give any evidence of this, but those advocating for deletion didn't give anything more than a vague wave towards there being no coverage without providing any detail and without responding to the assertions made by those arguing for keep. We can presume those voting keep thought their assertions were relevant, but we cannot assume those assertions were in any way related to a guideline we have no evidence they even knew existed. Over a week after the assertion was made nobody had mentioned anything about it not being relevant so it's reasonable to assume that nobody did think it was irrelevant, because if you think someone's rationale in a deletion discussion is irrelevant it's reasonable to assume you will say something. Neither set of arguments were sufficiently strong to overcome the numerical equality = no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The broader consensus established by this recent RfC. Avilich (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literally nobody mentioned NSPORTS in that discussion so it is entirely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The keep side implicitly argued that the topic met the GNG NSPORT, even if they didn't say so specifically. JoelleJay (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They were clearly attempting to refute the argument made in the nomination (because what else could they be doing by !voting the exact opposite of it?). The nomination cited the GNG so by saying the nominator was wrong they were saying that it met the GNG. Nobody mentioned NSPORTS at all, so there is no way to know from the discussion whether anybody was even aware it existed. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying every keep !vote is assumed to be directly rebutting the stated deletion rationale, and is therefore always valid no matter how guideline-defective the literal words of the !vote are. Meanwhile the delete !votes are expected to directly refute an assumed implicit rationale hidden in the keep arguments. How about we just give post hoc justification to the deletes too, like assuming that of course they reject the suggestion that "top scorer for the Tonga national football team" would garner GNG coverage because participation-based criteria were deprecated from NSPORT; because NSPORT doesn't even presume SIGCOV exists when meeting its existing criteria, let alone non-existent ones; because neither keep !voter was able to bring the article into guideline compliance by producing a source of SIGCOV; and because even explicit claims of meeting GNG without actually producing any sources are routinely discounted.

Or. OR! We could take the arguments at face value like many many other closers have and discard the ones that do not have P&G support.12 JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, we can assume that every keep !vote is attempting to refute the nomination rationale presented but not any rationale not mentioned. Similarly we can assume that the deletion nomination is based on the rationale presented, but we cannot assume that anything not mentioned has been considered. So, once again, NSPORTS is completely irrelevant here because nobody mentioned it. What it says or presumes is not relevant.

We cannot assume that those seeking to delete considered the rationales presented for keeping because they didn't mention anything about them. We don't know whether they looked for significant coverage related to those claims or didn't look because they didn't say. If they did look we have no idea whether they found no coverage, coverage that was extensive but not independent, coverage that was independent but not extensive, coverage that was both but they decided not to mention because it didn't fit what they wanted (this is the least likely) because they literally said nothing.

You appear to be assuming that I'm saying the keep closure should be endorsed, but I'm explicitly not. I'm saying there was no consensus in that discussion to keep and also no consensus to delete because we cannot assume things based on what was not in said in the discussion. Both delete and keep !votes were equally weak. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus because the discussion did not lead to a consensus. No need to relist (but anyone may renominate). Those !voting keep may give any rationale they wish and the opinion should not be dismissed a priori even if it is not part of our notability guidelines – but it may not be persuasive to others. Those !voting delete may limit themselves to citing a guideline without providing a further rationale and the opinion should not be dismissed a priori even if the citation is not apposite – but it may not be persuasive to others. Rightly or wrongly, some closers will close according to their own opinions about the article so it pays to !vote persuasively. Thincat (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:ATINER Athens Institute for Education and Research

Draft:ATINER Athens Institute for Education and Research (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Even ignoring that XFD isn't a "vote", there are 3 well reasoned deletes (4 if you include my nomination) and a single keep that was discussed endlessly and was incorrect. I fail to see how this is a possible outcome given the discussion there. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from closing admin - There were two keep votes, not one. User:SmokeyJoe made a comment towards the end that was clearly a keep vote even though it didn't have a bolded keep in front of it. As I mentioned in the closing statement, the article was heavily modified throughout the course of the MfD to remove any content that might be an WP:ATTACK. Many of the delete votes were made before or during the the time that the article was being modified. As it stands now, the draft is two sentences: the first is a basic description of the organization, and the second is a sourced description of two public lists that the organization was added to. It strains credulity to claim that the current version of the draft is an attack page, even though the original version might have been. While it's rather unlikely that the current version of this draft would ever be approved to become an article, that isn't a valid reason to delete it. The bar is quite low for drafts, since they're NOINDEXed and generally difficult to find. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I only made one pass through the nominated page and the nomination, and considered the nomination to be ridiculous, it absolutely does not meet G10. I was leaving it for later to think what should be done with it, almost certainly a merge suggestion. Drafts may be destined to become part of an existing article, their not being likely to become a standalone page is not a reason for deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Scottywong. The current version of the draft merely states facts as neutrally as possible to reliable sources. The offending content from the time the deletion nomination was first made has since been removed.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and note that a Revdel of the objectionable content would render much of the remaining objections moot. Not that I'm necessarily endorsing that, just noting that that's one way of handling attacking material in an otherwise appropriate article. Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse, although my !vote to Delete was, as noted, with respect to essentially the same version of the draft as is now being viewed. The closer had four possible actions, three of which would have been valid conclusions, and one of which would have been wrong. The wrong answer would have been Keep, and the close wasn't a Keep. Any of Delete, No Consensus, or Relist would have been valid conclusions by the closer. In view of the extent of changes, Relist would have been good, and No Consensus for a draft isn't that different. As the closer says, drafts are only occasionally deleted, and they should even less often be deleted by overturning a close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (no consensus). If the page were in mainspace (if the journal passed WP:NJOURNALS), then the contention over claims and sources would and should be sorted by editing and discussion on the talk page. In draftspace, the same doesn’t really happen, which is my guess for why it was taken to MfD. Mfd is the wrong forum to fix bad drafting. Draftspace exists to host bad drafts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Scottywong's analysis above strikes me as reasonable. Delete would ordinarily be the right closure given the numbers, but the changes made during the discussion mean that this isn't an ordinary case. I agree with Robert that a relist might have been appropriate, but what the closer did is within discretion, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

30 June 2022

Recent discussions

29 June 2022

italianwinepodcast

italianwinepodcast (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I would like it restored so I can make the appropriate corrections (which I was making but it was deleted before I could post them) since it was deleted for a WP:G11 not for copyright infringement or anything else I can change the sentences and make it encyclopedic and objective Jdtw2022 (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restored in draft at Draft:Italianwinepodcast, please use the submit from review button when you've finished with your corrections. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There's already a sandbox version (User:Jdtw2022/sandbox) and you've posted at Teahouse. There's still no indication of notability. Perhaps it's best left for someone without a conflict of interest in promoting the podcast. Star Mississippi 14:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the deletion as G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Either version of the draft should be Declined if submitted as written from the viewpoint of the podcast rather than presenting what third parties have said. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to appellant - We know that the queue for review of drafts is backlogged, and sometimes review takes a few months. Please don't try to use Deletion Review as a device to jump the queue. It annoys the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Robert McClenon: To be fair, at the time of the listing the article was deleted and the userspace sandbox didn't exist. The nominator isn't trying to jump the queue. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think the current state of affairs with the article in draft/userspace and the main article deleted is satisfactory and this nomination may be closed. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

28 June 2022

Gideon Obhakhan

Gideon Obhakhan (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AFD was closed as delete. However, I do not think the closer recognized that a policy based argument made by Reading Beans (who quoted NPOL directly using green text and connected how the subject passed it) had shifted the final comments all to keep. This was further supported by evidence from Soman. This should be overturned and re-listed to allow further discussion or be overturned as no consensus. 4meter4 (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist so that recent edits and improvements can be given full consideration. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse as a valid conclusion from the discussion, although No Consensus would have been better. However, also Allow Review of Draft Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist if there is indeed not enough significant coverage, the presumption of notability from NPOL is irrelevant. However it always seems to me to be a bizarre outcome if on one day if consensus is considered not clear enough that a relist occurs, and all following opinions are for one outcome and we then close with the opposite opinion. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to allow further development of consensus. These commissioners are state-level officials, but it's not clear to me that they're state level politicians, so I don't want to directly overturn.--Jahaza (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep in the 11 days since the comment 4meter4 references, the count is 3-0 keeps. The previous delete !votes don't address the topic and never revisited it; according them equal weight is problematic. Another relist isn't necessary, because there was a whole relist after the turning point without any further deletion input. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus the tone of the debate changed after User:Reading Beans cited [WP:NPOL]] in their argument. Should not be overturned to keep as the delete votes have merit as well. Frank Anchor 12:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, no opinion whether to keep, no consensus, or relist. The WP:NPOL argument had clearly turned the tide at the point of closure and there was no consensus for deletion. Because the argument was well-founded in a widely accepted notability guideline, one cannot merely discount those opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn NC or relist are both viable here, deletion is not. Both sides made guideline-based arguments, I honestly can't tell from that discussion what the right outcome is. Hobit (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist slowly shifting to keep, could use more discussion. 75.99.8.58 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

27 June 2022

Khae Rai Intersection

Khae Rai Intersection (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe there was a clear majority consensus that the article should be deleted due to a failure of WP:SIGCOV. There was consistent comment that the sources did not meet the standard of that guideline per WP:ROUTINE, and there was no rebuttal of that argument. As such, I believe this close should be overturned in favor of deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Without attempting to restate all of the arguments, and everything else about, IMO the close was clearly incorrect and should be overturned. On one new point, that closer argument was in essence an argument by the closer, and was for a synthesized topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A very poor close regardless of where you fall on the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum. This close was basically, "I have disregarded every single vote and comment in the AfD and have therefore decided it is no consensus." It should be overturned. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. The closer substituted her own view, which could and should have been expressed as a !vote, for a proper assessment of the consensus of the debate. This is a failure to follow correct deletion process. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by closer
  • To clarify, I did not "disregard every single vote and comment in the AFD". Nom statement was that this was an "intersection of two roads", that there is no practice under wp:outcomes to keep intersection articles, and that there was no indication of notability under GNG. The first delete comment (by Trainsandotherthings) echoed that "It would have to take something extraordinary for a road intersection to be notable." The second delete comment (by David Fuchs) was also based on it being about an intersection - "it's extremely rare for any intersection articles to exist because the content makes much more sense in other places..." The third delete vote (by Doczilla") indicated that it was a "barely-sourced item about a street intersection, of all things". However, as the non-delete comments pointed out, this article is not just about the intersection, but about the neighborhood around and named for the intersection. This tells me that the first three delete comments did not adequately engage with the content of the article or the arguments that had been made earlier in the discussion. The later set of delete comments all actually cited policy, either WP:SIGCOV or WP:ROUTINE, however Ms. Snoozy Turtle's comment again cites it being routine "for a road intersection." None of these commenters provided explanations as to how they felt it violated WP:SIGCOV and WP:ROUTINE, and none of them engaged with the sources found by 3 kids in a trenchcoat.
  • Regarding the keep arguments, the first two argue that the focus of the article is or should be the neighborhood, rather than just the intersection. However, the first two do not provide sources indicating that the neighborhood meets notability. 3 kids in a trenchcoat is the only commenter in the AFD who provided a substantive attempt to engage with sources. However, they were hampered by their lack of fluency in the language, and those sources have not made it into the article. Lerdsuwa did do some independent evaluation of the sources found by 3 kids in a trenchcoat, but did not go into detail as to how they did or did not meet the requirements of GNG.
  • The closer's job is not to merely count votes, but to evaluate the arguments. I did not find either the keep or delete arguments persuasive. Thus I closed it as no consensus. I added the clean up tag to the article as the title of the article causes confusion (at least as far as was apparent in the delete comments), and it does need more sourcing.
  • I disagree with the assertion that my closing statement was "in essence an argument by the closer". I was not making an argument about the article, I was not substituting my own view (I have no view on the article). I was merely summarizing my reading of the comments made in the discussion and the weakness of the arguments on both sides, which lead me to close as no consensus. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd also like to draw attention to wp:NHC.

  "Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue."

  ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Right now I feel like a meme of some one who keeps running back going "and another thing!" but if the commenters in a discussion cannot even reach a consensus about what the article under discussion is even about, how can there be consensus about what to do with said article? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The failure to deliminate a topic is a result of the poor sourcing to support said topic. If we had sources addressing this topic "directly and in detail" we wouldn't be having problems with delimitation. It's not surprising that in a case without significant coverage that issues like this exist. To my mind this is further evidence of a lack of notability in support of deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure as no consensus. The closing admin correctly pointed out most of the delete votes lacked policy-based rationale. Frank Anchor 19:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:ROUTINE is part of Wikipedia:Notability (events) and thus isn't applicable to an article about a junction. This weakens the delete argument. The closer's statement seems like a reasonable explanation why they closed as "no consensus". NemesisAT (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete If I view the initial relistings are reasonable in terms of consensus, followed by one "marginal" keep (lean), one "debatable" delete (considered it just to be the intersection) and three deletes - perhaps the deletes weren't comprehensive but their meanings were clear - how many more delete opinions would be required to move from not a clear consensus? clearly a perverse outcome relisting was essentially meaningless. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It seems like the burden of proof these days has fallen disproportiontely on those editors who want to keep an article to find and demonstrate that there are reliable sources that prove notability while those seeking deletion can simply say that a subject isn't notable or say that they can't find any sources (which can't ever be confirmed). I think the closer was correct in discounting Delete "votes" that just reflect an editor's opinion on whether or not an intersection should be considered notable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that is indeed what WP:BURDEN states. If you feel you'd like that to change, do feel free to gather a consensus for your proposal in an appropriate talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, actually WP:BURDEN applies to content within an article, not entire articles. Jclemens (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  " or say that they can't find any sources (which can't ever be confirmed)." - it may not be able to be confirmed, but it can be rebutted by finding those sources, which is exactly the point, no one can prove the negative here, I can't show a picture of stuff I couldn't find because well I couldn't find it, or are you proposing I have to record in someway all the searches done and prove to the satisfaction of those opining to keep that the searches were comprehensive somehow? Of course those saying the sources exist, can point to them and demonstrate it which would seem a much easier standard. 81.100.164.154 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you have spent time looking for sources and failed to find any, then say "despite searching, I've not found any sources", rather than just "there aren't any sources". Better still say what you did find, e.g. if you found a sources that mentioned it in passing, say "I found an article [link] that mentions it but nothing more.", if you searched the archives of a particular newspaper and failed to find any coverage, say that. If you can't even verify that the place exists, say that. Mention what search terms you used, especially if you used multiple ones. In other words - be specific about what you did and what the results were. Not only does this make it clear that you have spent time looking, it helps other people with their searches and reduces duplication of effort and can explain differences in results (someone searching for "Place, Country" is going to see different results to someone searching for Place, Province). Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So as one of the delete opinions states "The obvious caveats about searching for foreign language subjects applies, but I wasn't able to find any evidence that there's significant coverage of the intersection itself" seems to meet much of that. Regardless it makes little difference the objection is coming for the form of expression of the opinion expressed but not the substance. The stuff about being helpful to others is of course well taken, but not really the terms of the original complaint - and frankly I'd expect those of the opposite opinion to want to search and examine for themselves rather than take my word for it. 81.100.164.154 (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't able to find any evidence that there's significant coverage of the intersection itself is only partly relevant given that the article is not solely about the intersection. I'd expect those of the opposite opinion to want to search and examine for themselves rather than take my word for it and well they might, but that's their choice. If you say "I've searched X and Y for Z" then someone else with limited time can start by searching different places and/or using different search terms, and it is better all round to see "I found nothing when searching X and Y for Z" followed by "I found the following sources in X and Y when I searched for ZA and ZB" than "There aren't any sources" followed by "well you can't have done a proper BEFORE as I found sources within 5 minutes". Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse I think there were two threads in this AfD, was the intersection notable, and was the neighborhood that contains the intersection notable. The consensus to the intersection was a clear no, while the neighborhood question is closer to a yes. While I feel the best close would of been to draftify to change the primary topic and discuss the title, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is a valid argument, so I'll weakly endorse this. Jumpytoo Talk 05:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete I believe that participants in a discussion have an expectation to discuss the sources found in the article if another participant points toward additional sources that may meet GNG. In this case, the four delete comments after 3 kids in a trenchcoat's keep comment all suggested the sources found were not sufficient to meet GNG. And looking at most of the comments favoring deletion, there is a suggestion that the coverage is not significant. I do understand where the closer was coming from, as many of the comments also referred to intersections not being notable . --Enos733 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse - This was a poorly written close that reads more like an !vote than a close, but it was a close that properly reflects the lack of consensus. It is a waste of time to say that the closer should have drawn a conclusion from the discussion when the conclusion was not there. The conclusion did summarize the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It's clear from the AfD that there is consensus that the road junction alone is not notable, but there is no consensus about the wider neighbourhood of which the road junction is a part. As the article is about both neighbourhood and junction and not every topic covered in an article needs to be notable enough for a stand-alone article, we're left at no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: May I suggest that those arguing to overturn and delete take a look at the present article, now at Khae Rai, Nonthaburi Khae Rai, which has since undergone major restructuring and expansion, and confirm that their positions still hold? Cc: 4meter4, Stifle & Enos733. PS Also North8000 and Trainsandotherthings. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)–14:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So now there are two questions. Review of the close and the future status of the expanded and renamed (and possibly new-scoped) article. On thee latter question I would try to learn if the surrounding neighborhood truly has an recognized identity as such and my answer would follow that. Perhaps the pragmatic answer here should be to reopen a new AFD. North8000 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Major changes during the course of a DRV are difficult to usefully address. I would also suggest a new AFD. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree a new AFD would be preferable. --Enos733 (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumika Gurung

List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning players

List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning players (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The list was deleted under WP:LISTCRUFT, however there was nothing indiscriminate about the list. It was a straight up factual list of players who had won this specific cup. The information was straight forward and clear. Some argument was that the list violated WP:SYNTH, which is bizarre, as lists can't be a conclusion of information. Lists are a collection of information. From List of Star Wars books or List of PlayStation games (A–L) or List of James Bond films. This list just needed work to bring it up to standard, which no one had done. I suggest over-turn to draft space for improvement and put a hold on this AfD. Govvy (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin I do not have time at this moment to re-evaluate my close so no comment on that until I can. However, if @Govvy or another editor would like it for draft space, I'm happy to provide. Star Mississippi 16:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I went back and read through the AfD. I don't see any other way that I could have closed this. But still fine with draft space incubation. Star Mississippi 13:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse if this is an appeal of the close. The close is a valid conclusion from the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Re-Creation of Draft if that is what is being requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is no need to overturn the close to create a copy in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, closure is valid. I don't support creating a draft version, as the circumstances of the article mean that it is very unlikely the reason for deletion can be resolved; therefore, the only possible outcomes would be the draft going stale, in which case we are back where we are at the moment, or it being moved to mainspace in an end-run around consensus, which is undesirable. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 17:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - there was clear consensus. GiantSnowman 17:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - no issues with this closure - it reflected the consensus from the participants Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a 'per nom' is only half a !vote when one of the two arguments put forward in the nom is a clear misunderstanding of WP:CLN. I can't see the sources to opine on those, but I think the deletion arguments are structurally weak; seeing the sourcing would help me opine further. Jclemens (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I disagree with deleting the article and tend to agree with nom's arguments. However, consensus says otherwise. It was quite clear that the "Delete" close was correct, as much as I wish it weren't so. DRV is not for relitigating arguments expressed in AfD - I've made that point in DRV when I've been on the prevailing side in these kinds of AfDs and it's only fair that I point that out when I disagree with the outcome as well. Smartyllama (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation I think a deletion of the article was a hasty decision. To be honest, I totally regret that I started a talk page in WikiProject Football which resulted in this deletion. It was a mistake to trust it for solving edit disputes for the article. Instead of solutions for the article's edit disputes and problems, we got a total eradication of it. It did not have WP:SYNTH as it was not a case of an original research. I think that the article can exist in Wikipedia. It just needed a little improvements. I support Govvy's suggestion even though many will disagree with me. NextEditor123 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

26 June 2022

25 June 2022

22 June 2022

Nishan Velupillay

Nishan Velupillay (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as keep at 5k to 3d/r with zero given close rationale and apparently without weighing !votes. Talk page discussion suggests the closer simply agreed with the keep !voters that someone playing at the top level of football in their country "is notable". Since that argument is invalid, due to NSPORT being subordinate to GNG and NFOOTY being deprecated, and since the only GNG-based reasons put forth by keeps rested on unreliable sources and passing mentions in routine match reports, the close should be overturned and the AfD relisted. JoelleJay (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying my talk page comment with examples of similar AfDs being closed as delete or relisted:

[3], [4] (relisting comment, at 7k 3d: Clearly some significant coverage, but no overriding consensus. The keep view wins the voting but doesn't really create a strong enough consensus right now with just the single source of significance presented.), [5], [6], [7] (including three !votes calling The Football Sack unreliable), [8], [9] The "keep" arguments consist only of references to WP:NFOOTY, which presumes notability for high-level players. But this presumption is rebuttable, and it has been rebutted here: the "delete" side argues that the subject fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources, and that argument has not been refuted (or mostly even addressed) by the "keep" side. Based on the strength of the arguments presented, in the light of applicable guidelines, we therefore have rough consensus for deletion. [10], [11], [12] ...The first keep vote rests solely on the premise that paying in the Egyptian Premier League is sufficient for notability when no league carries that presumption..., [13], [14] Although opinions are divided, the "delete" arguments are significantly more convincing in the light of applicable guidelines. These guidelines have recently been revised to make it clearer that mere participation in high-level sporting events is not a guarantee for inclusion at the article level if a search for sources does not establish notability to WP:GNG standards. [15], [16]. Note that some of these were from before NFOOTY was deprecated; those same keep arguments weren't even persuasive then. JoelleJay (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse at the very very best this could have been no consensus. Folks have argued the sources aren't good enough but there wasn't anything close to consensus on that point. Hobit (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Whether it is Keep or no consensus is up for debate (given that it is 5/3 I'm leaning towards the latter), but the end result is the same. 12.148.188.220 (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No realistic chance that a relist could turn the discussion to “delete”. See advice at WP:RENOM, especially the part about a better nomination. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I personally would have read it as no consensus. Relisting is not mandatory and I don't think it's necessary here given the participation (though I would say it's also within discretion, not that we usually get relists at DRV). Keep a reasonable margin within discretion, considering the distinction is not that substantial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The closer actually tried to close it at 4k 3d but then accidentally relisted, leading to another (substanceless) keep !vote, so the discussion was certainly not dead. A relist would've at least allowed more editors to contribute valid !votes; we cannot achieve consensus from arguments explicitly rejected by our guidelines (presuming notability from his playing pro football, assertions of GNG being met from sources that are unreliable/not independent). The remaining GNG claims rest on articles specifically excluded from NSPORT due to being ROUTINE match reports and bare mentions. JoelleJay (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear: the sum total of info referencing Velupillay from the RS brought up in the AfD (aside from the Daily Telegraph tabloid piece that is paywalled) is 8 sentences at best, 6 of them strictly from routine recaps. The other two sentences are only found in a drop-down box after clicking his name in a list, and are far from SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I admit I may have been intending to comment on that AfD between the relist and the close, and based on the discussion at that point and the assumption I'm not substantially better at finding sources than existing participants (a fairly safe assumption, I think) I likely would have !voted delete, but (maybe I'm too cynical) I doubt a couple of delete !votes would have made much of a difference. Especially with the keep !votes also continuing to come in, whether or not they post their own independent reasoning. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alpha3031 A couple of delete !votes, even if they contained just the bare minimum argument, would absolutely have warranted at least a relist. The issue with most of the keep !votes is that they do not actually have any guideline backing (which, per the examples I linked above, means they should be given very little weight), and, importantly, do not bring the subject into compliance with NSPORT (as the IP said below, SPORTSBASIC now requires all athlete articles have at least one piece of SIGCOV in IRS in the article). The closer should have been familiar with at least the revised NSPORT consensuses and therefore should have weighed arguments with those in mind. JoelleJay (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as per above editors. Keep was a valid conclusion, and No Consensus also would have been (and that is a distinction without much difference). It is true that the Keep statements did not say much and that the close did not provide analysis, but that wouldn't have changed the outcome or made it a bad close. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I might have closed no-consensus but that wouldn't change anything. Relisting would not have achieved anything meaningful. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist. The close-comment in the AfD includes nothing beyond the decision to keep, and in particular did not address how, or even whether, the arguments were assessed for weight. Only two keep !votes were even close to having substance, in so much as they produced the two articles of dubious significance expanded on below, and these two also mix in clearly insufficient arguments such as "has Google autocomplete suggestions" and "is on a notable team". Two other keep !votes only produce routine match reports and the last provides no further argument.

There is no evidence of SIGCOV; certainly not in the article, and not in the AfD discussion either. Sportscrit #5 requires all articles to have at least one piece of significant coverage. Only one keep !vote even explicitly asserts SIGCOV, but provides only routine match reports to support it. As explicitly said in WP:NSPORT, routine match reports don't count as SIGCOV. That leaves The Football Sack article (an article on a "volunteer-based website" written by an undergraduate) and the ABC News article (two sentences in a listicle attached to the end of an article).

Again, the closer gave no indication of having considered the content of the votes, rather than just counting them up. 46.235.225.42 (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. The keep voters and the closer all supported a non-policy based rationale that contradicts the policy at WP:NSPORT per the RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. At some point we have to start enforcing the new updated policies. This is one of those times.4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Guidelines aren't policies. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn or relist Not seeing a consensus that the sources constituted significant coverage: some keep voters asserted it, the delete voters all denied it, the latter more convincingly in my view. A relist for more policy-based input would have helped, but a forceful delete would not have been inappropriate either, considering the need to enforce the updated guidelines. Avilich (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus would also have been a reasonable closure, but there wasn't a consensus to delete there. I don't think a relist would be appropriate, since there was plenty of participation and there weren't any substantial changes during the discussion. The fact an AfD didn't come to the "right" outcome is not grounds for a relist. Hut 8.5 11:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archive