Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:20, 16 October 2021

15 October 2021

List of longest-living state leaders

List of longest-living state leaders (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page is not some permastub on a non-notable supercentenarian. It is the list of the oldest state leaders ever. The hundred oldest ever. And it was deleted. It is not like the "list of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War." It is nearly as important as List of the verified oldest people, as List of American, Belgian, British, etc. supercentenarians, as List of centenarians. These people are the oldest-ever state leaders. 🐔 Chicdat   10:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse- The consensus at the AfD was clearly judged correctly. Reyk _YO! 10:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse - Aye, this seems like a clearly correct reading of consensus. Even if we ignored the headcount completely - and we don't - the keep arguments were pretty handwavey . I see that the nominator didn't discuss with the closer first, but I am inclined to think that that's no big issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse – you would need a killer of an argument to overcome a clear numerical consensus like that, and "it's important; it's useful" do not suffice. The delete !votes raised serious policy-based arguments (e.g. WP:NOT; WP:OR), and the keep !votes did not adequately rebut them, opting instead for classic WP:AADD arguments. Since deletion clearly has consensus from both a numerical and a strength-of-argument perspective, the close was correct. I also note for the appellant that DRV is not AfD round 2; the statement above reads more like an attempt to relitigate the discussion than an actual challenge to the close. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy close because what the DRV nom says does not mean that the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, and it is not pertinent to any of the other four WP:DRVPURPOSE reasons. Therefore the nomination does not align with the purpose of this forum, so there is no prospect of success. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment While it seems unfortunate to those who have been maintaining them, the consensus across many AfDs is that "List of X" are being roundly deleted as NOT something Misplaced Pages is going to consider appropriate for covering. I'm sorry, but that isn't something in DRV's purview to overturn, even though I feel your pain. Jclemens (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Matthew Tye

Matthew Tye (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As discussed on previous admin AfD talk page this individual has become more prominent since 2018 - https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Shritwod#Matthew_Tye Infograbber19 (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and continued protection - for clarity, it wasn't Shritwod who deleted the article; he nominated it for deletion. Sandstein was the deleting admin. And despite reasonably clear instructions to discuss it with the admin who deleted it, not one but three accounts managed to (incorrectly) find their way to the wrong editor's talk page to have that discussion. My ears are ringing it's that loud, but that discussion on Shritwod's page demonstrates fairly comprehensively that not much has changed since the last time (the third AFD!) this was deleted. I think we need a lot more before removing creation protection. St★lwart 08:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Well now I don't know what to think... I went to open an WP:SPI and one of them is a bloody admin. St★lwart 08:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, bright shiny light time: WhisperToMe, Demetrios1993 and Infograbber19... how did you all randomly end up at the wrong talk page, advocating for the same repeatedly-created article, within days of each other? St★lwart 11:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: I read Reddit and I recall that comment reminded me that the Matthew Tye article was deleted (I knew it had been deleted before, but the comment jolted my memory). I knew that there were articles since 2018, so because new sources existed I felt the issue could be revisited. Also I believe it is, in fact, appropriate to contact the original nominator for deletion (Rather than the deletion admin) as one can present new evidence to them and then negotiate over the talk page before a formal deletion review can be filed: even if one contacted the deletion admin first, one would have to eventually involve the original nominator in a deletion review. Think about it: if the original nominator changes their mind after seeing new , that makes the subsequent deletion review process easier. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: I don't think there's anything underhand going on myself. If you look at the AfD, even I thought that Shritwod was the closer at first, because their !vote is formatted differently from the others and sits immediately below the top of the AfD. I only noticed the proper close, above the header, 5 seconds later. And once the conversation had started on Shritod's page, I guess that further reinforced the view that that was where to challenge it.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

So... three separate accounts independently made the same mistake about the same three-year-old discussion and then independently arrived at the same wrong talk page, all within the same week, to advocate for recreation of an article on the basis of the same one-year-old source. Yeah, that source wasn't published last week or last month (such that people might suddenly and logically be encouraged to revisit his notability)... it was published in 2020. St★lwart 11:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ah! Mystery solved: in this Reddit thread the subject of the article asks fans to help get his article restored, just a few days before the above nonsense started. That an admin would involve themselves is... concerning... but at least I know I'm not losing my mind. St★lwart 12:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

To answer your question, i ended up participating in the discussion, right after Uzer:Infograbber19 posted in the talk page of Tye's business partner, Winston Sterzel (diff). I have Sterzel's article in my watchlist, and after i saw his post, i simply reviewed his contributions and joined the discussion (diff). You can easily see this from the fact that both diffs are from the 24th of September and approximately three hours apart, yet the discussion had began from the 15th of September. Also, this is the first time i see this Reddit thread, and besides, i was interested in the creation of a new article from August, as i wrote in the aforementioned discussion. Furthermore, the Reddit thread didn't begin "a few days before the above nonsense started" (15th of September), but one day later (16th of September). Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Uh huh. If I'm wrong about the dates (and it seems I am) then we should be very concerned about the real story. St★lwart 01:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh my notifications have gone a bit mad. I haven't been paying it much attention. To be honest, I'm a deleter and I don't think either Tye or Sterzel pass the notability threshold. But then there are thousands of other biographies of far less notable people. Shritwod (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse and keep salted- nothing's changed, and the off-site canvassing means that continued protection is required. Reyk _YO! 14:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse and keep salted. I very much doubt that these new sources would persuade anyone at AfD, and the canvassing certainly doesn't incline me to lift the protection. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Allow recreation – I believe a lot has changed since 2018, and the subject has had more coverage in reliable secondary sources (see the aforementioned discussion). In my opinion he passes WP:GNG and the guideline for creative professionals (points 1 and 3). Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:flaglist+link

Template:flaglist+link (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Significant new information has come to light since the deletion (3, WP:DRV):

This particular use of {{flagg}} parameters is expensive and can only be used on a few hundred links per article. (H:TABLE)

This was the main argument for deleting the template (as other objections were addressed):

it has a WP:PEIS that is too large for a template intended to be used hundreds of times per article.

Ultimately, this was a long time wasting exercise of replacing one template with another, doing essentially the same and with the same limitations, only less wieldy to non-technical editors (which makes me wonder whether this was really about deleting the template, or its author's contributions). — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse This is utterly bogus reasoning, as {{flaglist+link}} was just as expensive as its replacement, and there's no reason to think that the participants at the TfD didn't know that, or would have supported keeping it if they had known. And there was a remaining unaddressed objection, that that consecutive links to a more general article and then a specific article is inferior to linking solely to the specific article, and that the use of generic link text like "more" is inadequate (from Bsherr's comment). The replacement with {{flagg}} that I performed does in fact address that objection, and the sole remaining objection is that I engaged in a long time wasting exercise of replacing one template with another. Well, it's not your responsibility to tell me how to spend my time. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

  I also note that you've made no effort to discuss this with the closing admin (and in fact didn't even notify them of this DRV). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Per Pppery. Guarapiranga has said nothing here that wasn't already said at the TFD. The new method using {{flagg}} is better: Help:Table#Adding links to specialized country, state, or territory articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)