Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 22:49, 30 December 2024

Skip to: Active discussions Recent discussions Archive (purge cache)

Shortcut WP:DRV

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

• WP:DRVPURPOSE

Deletion review may be used:

1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
2. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion for these);
5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
10. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

• WP:DELREVD

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

If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion instead.

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages: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.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

• *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
• *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
• *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
• *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

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. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

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, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages: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 closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
• If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

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

• Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion
• 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 or sockpuppet 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

8 January 2025

Fil-Products Group (closed)

7 January 2025

Guite people

Guite people (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am not convinced that notability was adequately established. The article subject is a WP:CASTE topic, where many print sources are low-quality, partially based on oral tradition, or ethnically biased — so the nom's statement in a reply that the existing information "is all folklore and no authentic sources are available" is credible. See also WP:RAJ for more background.

Not all of the existing references were checked, but we identified several that are clearly unreliable, and two users failed to find substantive online sources. One user claimed to find various print sources, but did not identify any by name. None of the Keep !votes provided new sources that prove notability, or asserted the reliability of existing references; some users made unjustified assertions of the subject being "well-known". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This was open for three weeks, and I certainly do not see a consensus to delete. I suppose I could have closed it as no consensus, but the end result is the same, so it's unclear to me what we are doing at DRV. Beeblebrox 06:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse Not a single person besides the nom put in a !vote for deletion. There were suggestions, and some indication that a sizeable minority of the references were not RS, but lots of people thought it was OK to keep, even if weakly. While there were a few commentators noting issues, not one, including the appellant, came out and said "This should be deleted". Hard to close it any other way, and I think Beeblebrox is being overly charitable--I don't see no consensus within reach here. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to challenge failures to follow the deletion process. It is not a venue to seek a second bite at the cherry when the deletion discussion did not go your way. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse: Well I see that there was surely no consensus for deletion and this is not the venue for doing these things.Also WP:RAJ is an essay not a policy. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 11:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse and procedurally close per WP:DRVPURPOSE. The appellant made no claim that consensus wasn't read correctly, nor presented any significant new information to overturn the close. No one is obliged to convince the appellant that notability was adequately established. Owen× ☎ 14:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse there's simply no way to close that discussion as delete, even if you completely down-weight all of the keep !votes. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. Ridiculous DRV nomination. Read advice at WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse - The only possible closure. Does the appellant have some reason why they think that the AFD was handled erroneously? On its face, it appears that they simply disagree with the community, but that is not what DRV is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

6 January 2025

5 January 2025

3 January 2025

Raegan Revord (closed)

Category:Fulbright Scholars

Category:Fulbright Scholars (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion page shows a problem. The reasoning given for deleting this category was that it's nondefining for a scholar--that if they receive this, they're already alumni of the school that awarded it. See https://fulbrightscholars.org/ for Scholar and Distinguished Scholar awards, and https://us.fulbrightonline.org/fulbright-us-student-program for the studentships that the original nominators for this category deletion confused for the Fulbright Scholar Award.

A Fulbright Scholar Award or Distinguished Scholar Award goes to senior academics and practitioners, and is career-defining--the kind of thing that goes in one's obituary. It is not the same thing as a Fulbright studentship which is scholarship money awarded to grad students who would be listed as alumni of a given school. While a scholarship would typically be money granted to a grad student and a fellowship would be for senior academics, it's the opposite here. Typical Fulbright Scholars include James Galbraith, Donald Regan, Robert Rotberg, etc.

There is already a partial of notable Fulbright Scholars but it's serving as a backdoor to this now-missing category. The Fulbright Program page includes it, along with a clear distinction between the two main categories of Scholar grants and Student grants.

Fulbright Study/Research Fellows or Students (those younger grad students the original deleters of this category were speaking of) typically would not have Misplaced Pages pages or be notable yet. Some extremely notable Fulbright Scholars and Distinguished Scholars don't appear on that page, such as Richard Rosecrance, John Lewis Gaddis, Shaun Gabbidon, Alejandro de la Fuente, and so forth. This list should also include the incomplete list found at https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Fulbright_Distinguished_Chairs.

It would be a service to this wiki to include Fulbright Scholars and Fulbright Distinguished Scholars via category rather using the original name of "Category:Fulbright Scholars" than in the scattershot way of hoping someone had listed them under the notables on the original page.

RubyEmpress (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. The close correctly reflected unanimous agreement at the CfD. The appellant says that some Distinguished Scholar Award recipients are notable. This is true, but does not contradict the claim that most award recipients are not notable, and that the award itself is non-defining. In fact, of the three examples of "Typical Fulbright Scholars" examples she gives, none mention the award. The appellant has not presented significant new information per WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. This is just another kick at the can. Owen× ☎ 08:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow deletion process. It is not a venue for re-arguing the deletion discussion because it did not go your way. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Question - Are deletions of categories different from deletions of articles as to when they can be reviewed? Are deletions of categories effective for five years or ten years or forever rather than six months? Is that why need a Deletion Review? Or is there some way that Consensus Can Change? Are we really locked in to a three-year-old decision? Is taking another look at a three-year-old decision really another kick at the can?Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  The lapse of time itself is irrelevant, if no significant new information is presented. This appeal only claims that the CfD participants erred in their assessment, which isn't a valid DRV claim, not to mention that she hasn't even established the veracity of that claim. Based on the argument she presents here, there is no more of a case for keeping that category today than there was when it was deleted three years ago. Owen× ☎ 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Question - Is this an appeal to overturn a three-year-old deletion decision, or is this a request to create a new category three years after the category was deleted? This appears to be a request to create a new category three years after the deletion. Do we need Deletion Review for the purpose? Can the appellant just do it? Is DRV unnecessary? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse It's difficult to endorse an old discussion with only three participants, so I'm treating this DRV more like a new CfD because I'm not sure what else to do - but I do agree it's non-defining especially per Owenx and that it would be deleted again if it were re-created for the same reason it was deleted before. SportingFlyer T·C 17:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment This isn't policy but for practical purposes, I've found that CFD decisions are considered valid forever. Unlike article deletions which have a Draft space where editors can work on improving the content of a recreated article, that possibility doesn't exist for categories. I've seen categories CSD G4'd from decisions that occurred years and years ago. I'm not a frequent participant there any longer but my perception is that CFD decisions are rarely reviewed and reassessed. I would like this to change because CFD decisions are usually determined by a very small number of editors and shouldn't last forever but I'm not sure that if this discussion would be setting any precendent for the future. Liz 06:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Yeah. In my experience, G4 is enforced far more strictly and for far longer for CFD than for any other deletion venue. (I'm reminded in particular of my exchange with Pppery at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 28#Category:Recipients of the Order of Tahiti Nuis.) —Cryptic 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it should change. G4 should apply indefinitely, and recreation should be allowed via DRV provided some new fact, and changes of the PAG landscape, of recent practices, examples of other categories kept at CfD in the meantime can also be significant new facts. —Alalch E. 17:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with Liz that there needs to be an appropriate venue to review CfD discussions, but Alalch E.'s comment highlights the problems with using DRV to do so: Everyone's opining "nothing has changed" which may be true, but does not consider "was this even the right decision in the first place?" Three people opined, and the closer and some other number of people looked at it and didn't participate. That doesn't seem to be enough discussion to make a category G4-able forever since, unlike articles, categories cannot be changed to be not substantially similar to what was previously deleted. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. Everything the DRV nom states was the same at the time of the 2021 CfD, so there are no new facts based on which to allow recreation consistent with WP:DRVPURPOSE#3.—Alalch E. 17:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse as a correct reading of consensus. I feel the same way I did in the DRV Cryptic linked: "I'm sympathetic to the argument that editors should be able to 'test' an old consensus every once in a while (along the lines of WP:CCC), but in this case it's very clear to me that a new CfD will lead to the same result, so I think !voting to would be an exercise in futility." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• No Opinion at this time. The idea that category deletions last forever makes things problematic. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Recent discussions

31 December 2024

Category:Trees of the Eastern United States (closed)

Patrik Kincl

Patrik Kincl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The first nomination was closed by OwenX as Keep without prejudice against early renomination, while the second was closed by Xplicit as simply Delete.

The second nominator incorrectly claimed that the "good faith" sources that told about Kincl's "personal life" in the first nomination were not reliable and independent. It may be true or not. Of the five sites, those are secondary in my view. Deník is one of the most frequently used sources for Czech Republic-related Misplaced Pages articles, so as a daily newspaper, it is reliable and secondary. From what I remember, there seem to be not more than five secondary sources before the page's deletion, then their opinion is asked without using a translator at least first.

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse The discussion was unanimous and couldn't have been closed any other way. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse unanimous consensus to delete. Restore to draftspace to allow Clariniie or any other user to incorporate sources into the article to improve upon it,considering the "keep" result that occurred less than a month earlier, and the sources that received at least some level of acceptance in the first AFD. Frank Anchor 20:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Changed to Overturn to no consensus largely for the same reasons I cited above, and per Clariniie and Alach E. Frank Anchor 03:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn It looks like a unanimous delete, but the result here is clearly wrong (not the fault of the closer, though). The second discussion started a day after the first ended so you have to view the first together, none of the participants from the first discussion were pinged, and there were a number of sources listed in the first discussion which weren't discussed or even acknowledged in the second discussion. The simple fact here is that there are many sources if you search in Czech, from all of the top newspapers. This is a list of articles where he's mentioned on only one Czech website: , and the other sources in the first AfD were from one of the top Czech news websites, though they appear paywalled. These were incorrectly discounted, and the article should be restored and marked for improvement. SportingFlyer T·C 03:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment as Discussion Starter: The article was nominated for deletion by the fact it failed WP:NMMA, as the person has not been ranked in the world top 10 by either Sherdog or Fight Matrix websites. Even if they meet SNG, all articles of sportspeople or any other public figures must meet the whole WP:GNG for the best and most important. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn per Clariniie's above comment. Anything can always meet GNG and be notable, until and unless we agree to change N to say otherwise, and SportingFlyer has made a compelling case that that general coverage was inadequately assessed. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• Question - What are we at Deletion Review being asked to do? The AFD was closed as Delete. What is the appellant asking for? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  To fix the mess. —Alalch E. 17:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Destroy the 2nd AfD. Faulty process. It should never be like this. Immediate renomination that bypasses the recent discussion that resulted in keep with a nomination that waves away the arguments which led to the consensus to keep is bad. The whole second AfD should be voided as if it had never existed, and the first AfD should be amended to erase the words "without prejudice against early renomination, if source analysis warrants it". That part of the first AfD's close which creates consequences in the future negatively affects the overarching process of getting to a decision on whether to keep or delete the article. It negatively affects precisely because it enabled a non-constructive AfD like the second one. Currently, the decision is to keep. To start a new AfD, WP:RENOM should be followed.—Alalch E. 17:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Would you have found a "No consensus" close for the first AfD more acceptable? Consensus to keep was marginal at best. There was no valid reason to shut the door on a justified early renomination. And a N/C close would have practically resulted in the same outcome here - an immediate second AfD. WP:RENOM is a widely-followed essay meant to prevent excessive churn at AfD. When the outcome is a marginal, a renomination is well justified. Owen× ☎ 17:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  The deletes didn't meet the burden to delete. There was a decent effort early on, but through the relist periods and in totality there was not enough argumentation on the delete side. What about the late sources? That had to be a keep. it was a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. It was an imperfect AfD but it was still roughly representative of what we want to see in AfD. It was pretty average, not requiring any special measures via the close in addition to the simple outcome. Allowing an early renomination was just asking for someone who for whatever reason disagrees with this article existing to skirt around the discussion and the rough consensus reached. Even with a 'no consensus' close, the article should generally not be immediately renominated, and administrators are justified in shutting down such discussions as non-constructive, instructing interested editors to wait. —Alalch E. 17:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• No Opinion at this time until I understand what we are supposed to be doing here. If I don't understand what is being asked, then I shouldn't either vote or !vote. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Take no action. The review request is largely unintelligible and does not indicate which if any action we are requested to take. The "overturn" opinions above likewise do not indicate what other closure of the deletion discussion they would consider correct. Accordingly, I would decline to take action. Sandstein 16:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'd either vacate the second AfD or allow the article to be restored, without prejudice for a third AfD. If you take the two AfDs together (considering one started a day after the other finished) there is no consensus to delete. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

29 December 2024

28 December 2024

27 December 2024

Clock/calendar (closed)

File:BigMacButton1975.png (closed)

Principal Snyder

Principal Snyder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Per my (and earlier, Darnios') discussion with Sandstein on his talk page,

1) Sandstein incorrectly characterized two RS'es, journal articles from Slayage which is discussed at Buffy studies, as self published sources when the publication was peer-reviewed and indexed at DOAJ at the time in question.

2) Sandstein raised an objection to the sources as non-RS when this was not only not brought up in the discussion, but the one editor commenting after they were posted in the deletion discussion had specifically mentioned them implying their suitability to expand the article.

3) WP:NEXIST exists for a reason, and this is a textbook case of it: there's now no dispute that this character has RS'ed commentary, so the multiple editors objecting to the current state of the article are not articulating a policy-based reason for deletion. "It sucks since no one has worked on it" has been accepted as a reason for deletion by multiple administrators, when it runs afoul of our WP:NOTPERFECT policy.

While this is a redirection with history intact, I maintain that it is still not a policy-based outcome. WP:BEFORE is designed to filter out such nominations; three separate participants made the correct, cordial observation that no BEFORE was articulated by the nominator, an editor who made numerous questionable deletion discussions, was counseled by Liz for this, and then vanished rather than address criticism here. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn to NC or relist there is reasonable split both in the discussion and at Sandstein's talk that the sourcing was misassessed. NB did not describe these sources as articles from an academic journal. You merely referred to them a how they are referred to has no bearing on their standing in RS. I'm not convinced this is a clear keep, but more time to discuss would be a viable outcome. Star Mississippi 02:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to Relist. This was a sloppy AFD by an inexperienced editor who has since left Misplaced Pages, and a sloppy DRV by an experienced editor. The appellant states correctly that the nominator failed to perform the before AFD search, but that is more of a conduct issue than a content issue, and DRV is a content forum. Failure to do the before search is a waste of the community's time, but is not a basis for a Speedy Keep. Either No Consensus or Merge or Redirect (with history retained) were valid conclusions by the closer. The appellant repeatedly stated that sources exist, but has not inserted the sources into the article, maybe because they are expecting the community to do the work of inserting the sources. (So both the nominator and the appellant were expecting the community to do their work for them.) The appellant's comments on the closer's talk page appear to be expecting the closer to do the work of researching the sources, which is not the closer's responsibility, and the closer was reasonably annoyed. One more week of discussion may clarify whether the community, which is divided, thinks that the stated existence of sources is sufficient to Keep the article. Or someone might be constructive and add the sources to the article for a Heymann keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  1) Speedy Keep was not invoked by any participant in this discussion.

  2) Per WP:NEXIST and WP:VOLUNTEER there is no requirement by anyone, at any time, to take any specific action to improve an article. This is the third and most important point in my argument. Sandstein is far from the only closing administrator to have acceded to arguments that "Yes, there may well be sources enough to establish notability, but WP:NOEFFORT", and it's time to either stop it or change the guidelines to match conduct. Not one of those arguing for redirection asserted a complete lack of sourcing; everyone arguing for keeping asserted that sufficient sources existed even if not present in the article. Does a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS allow an administrator to assign WP:NOEFFORT votes equal weight to those based on WP:NEXIST? Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  Sandstein did not accede to "Yes, there may well be sources enough to establish notability, but WP:NOEFFORT". Sandstein's close is clearly predicated on the lack of any evidence that the page meets GNG after two weeks at AfD. This is also the upshot of the discussion on their talk page. It is a policy based close. It is not the closer's fault if participants at AfD do not bring sources to the table. And looking at the wider argument: those not voting keep cannot prove that they cannot find sources. We don't prove a negative. But AfD is thus heavily biased towards keeping information, in that a failure to achieve consensus keeps an article, and alternatives to deletion are preferred to outright deletion. We cannot then just allow that any hand wave arguments like "I don't believe you looked properly" will do. AfD requires us to do some work. We are not compelled to do that work. No one has to contribute. But if an article is brought to AfD, and if it is not obvious the article is notable, then sources need to be discussed. Rather than saying please search Google Scholar with the additional keyword Slayage it would have been far more productive to have said: I searched Google scholar, and by adding the additional keyword slayage, I was able to find multiple sources including the following secondary sources, and . These meet GNG because... Yes, it is more work. No, you are not required to do any such work, but when an article is up for deletion, this is the time to look at the sources. It is often the only time an article has ever had a proper review of its sources. The attention it gets will greatly benefit the article. That is the added value of AfD. And I am sure you are already preparing to say that deletion is not for cleanup. It is not. But article improvement is often the happy result, and if the attention finds no secondary sourcing, the article should not be here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding the passing reference to WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion (policy, shortcut WP:ATD), I wrote a policy and consensus analysis that Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion in July 2022. There have been subsequent discussions, but no material policy changes. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Sirfurboy, please excuse the late reply; I stepped away from the discussion, and find this worth addressing. Thank you for addressing the heart of the matter: while many other participants are sucked into the minutae of the sources mentioned, you've been nearly alone in addressing the burden of proof issue.

  There's a fundamental reason we have BEFORE: Hitchens's Razor What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. When combined with WP:NEXIST it is clearly against policy for this to have even been seriously considered for deletion, because the default is to keep an article unless compelling evidence that it should be deleted is brought forth. "There's no sources", without a BEFORE search articulated, is a less efficacious argument than my reply "There's multiple sources right there on Google scholar, here's how to find them." Adding references to the sources, as was done later, doesn't fundamentally change the dynamics of the burden of proof, and everyone in that discussion or this who requests that those AfD participants arguing to keep an article provide proof of specific notability is, consciously or not, reversing the burden of proof.

  Sure, it would have been easier to post the links myself, but that's not the issue. If I or Daranios or others implicitly accept that responsibility, we've fundamentally rewritten the de facto standards for inclusion. Why should the bare assertion of non-notability be assumed to take priority, just because someone takes the time to nominate an article for deletion? Why is it somehow proper to assume good faith for the nominator, but not those rebutting the nomination? This is a question not just for this article--which could have been improved and un-redirected long before now--but for every AfD that turns on assertion of notability. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I had written an Endorse but Allow Submission of Draft but am persuaded by User:Star Mississippi. This is a difficult DRV because both the AFD and the DRV were sloppy. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• I won't say that assessing sources' reliability is a job solely for an afd's participants, but it's pretty close. It would have been reasonable for a closer to discount sources if they were inarguably unreliable - from open wikis, perhaps, or sources listed as unreliable at WP:RSP - but even then, best practice is to comment on the afd instead and leave an easier job for the next closer to look at it. Introducing a new argument like this in the close, when there's any chance at all that it could've been rebutted had the discussion not been simultaneously ended, isn't on.This, ironically, would've been a more reasonable close, and a harder one to overturn, if it hadn't included an explanation, just the result. —Cryptic 03:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (but maybe a relist is a good idea) A reasonably articulated close entirely within the closer's discretion for an AfD that had been open for two weeks, and where keep voters had failed to show that sources exist. The two "BEFORE not articulated" !votes were rightly discarded, and although, per the above, these were intended as a "cordial observation", text based communication loses nuance, and they could easily be read as an assumption of bad faith. I see from evidence here that the AfD nom. did have a habit of not searching for sources, expressed on their talk page - but there is no way the closer could be aware of that. It was the job of the keep voters to actually select and present some of the sources they claimed were so easily found, so they could be discussed at AfD. Only one !voter presented sources, but there was no indication in the presentation as to what those sources were or why they met GNG. Sandstein, on their talk page, explained what is equally clear to me, that prima facie, these add nothing. Who wrote them? are they independent, reliable secondary sources? None of this was addressed, and so the last redirect !vote notes GNG is not met. Not one keep voter showed how this met GNG. Also on Sandstein's talk page, I do not think Jclemens' A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep. is a suitable way to address a closer with queries over their close. That is a demand with a threat, not a question. And there is no way in the world that this was a keep outcome. It is closed correctly on the face of it. However, as most of the failure here is on the part of keep !voters who have simply not addressed the issue, and as it is possible that sources do exist, relisting this might be a reasonable outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• As closer, I endorse my own closure based on the information presented in the AfD.

If somebody presents new information after a closure (here, that the two sources linked to by Daranios in the AfD were from a supposedly reliable academic journal), that information can not be reflected in the closure because it was not presented to the other AfD participants and could therefore not have been the subject of discussion or consensus. In such cases, the person making such belated arguments must accept (as Daranios in fact did) that the closer will make their own determination about the merits of such a belated argument rather than reopening the AfD to let consensus decide. Here, I concluded that even assuming for the sake of argument that the two sources were reliable academic sources (which remains questionable given their amateurish presentation), they did not establish notability because only one of them covered the subject of the article more than in passing. For that reason, too, I concluded that a relisting was unwarranted.

I note also that this DRV was preceded by a threat by Jclemens against me. DRV should not reward such misconduct. Sandstein 12:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear: You are asserting that my statement that if you did not correct your incorrect close (accompanied in the same edit by a justification of why I reasonably believed your close was incorrect) I would bring the close to DRV constitutes a threat in your mind? If not, please clarify what you thought was a threat. Threat is a very serious word that I do not see can be reasonably used in this case consistent with WP:ADMINACCT. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Edit conflict, this was written before the statement just above.

Overturn to no consensus or relist, pretty much agreeing with Star Mississippi and Cryptic. (And in that regard I am grateful to Sandstein that they did take the time to elaborate on the closure rather than just posting the result). Since the AfD I've learnt that the way I've posted the two exemplary secondary sources was rather inconvenient and I should have elaborated on those sources. But I believe they are reliable and discussing the sources rather then dismissing them right away is the more helpful way to go. And the information that they are from an ISSN-listed magazine is there now even if that was not clear then. Likewise I agree that the closer would have no obvious way of knowing that the nominator purposfully ommited a WP:BEFORE search, making the nomination flawed. But that information is known now. So in the interest of the project, deciding what to do with the article now while considering those facts is more relevant than figuring out if the closure was wholey justified then or not. Daranios (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

So I guess this means that this is a case of a deletion review under 3. of WP:DRVPURPOSE: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion..." Daranios (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse I agree with Star Mississippi that the closer could have better characterized the sourcing of the two pdfs provided by Daranios in the discussion, and that a relist may have been acceptable. It is not the role of the closer to evaluate the sources provided in the discussion - only to characterize them. In this case, the visible links to the pdfs were to "offline.buffy.tv" and "dashboard.ir.una.edu" and described as secondary sources, the former which could be easily seen as an SPS. And the closer only needed to look at the next comment in the discussion (following Daranios' comment) that said that the sourcing did not meet GNG (so we must presume that at least one editor did not feel the sources provided by Daranios was sufficient). In addition, early in the discussion, Jclemens pointed discussants towards Slayage, where the articles Daranios pointed to are hosted. Shooterwalker suggested the sources were "trivial mentions or WP:PLOT and this doesn't pass GNG." So all of this being said, the closer saw at least two editors concluding the sourcing did not meet GNG, with general handwaving by editors supporting a keep decision, and suspected SPS sourcing, a redirect close is well within the closer's discretion. --Enos733 (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Relist. It is impractical to the point of absuridity to expect an AfD closer to do their own WP:BEFORE and their own source analaysis. It is also anathema to the administrative role of an unbiased adjudicator reading consensus. I don't know a single admin active in AfD who gives much weight to !votes that are merely, "I've seen sources, they exist!". WP:NEXIST tells us that sources need not be cited in the article to establish notability. It does not--and cannot--tell us that a mere claim about the existence of sources, even when made by an established, trusted WP veteran such as Jclemens, counts as a citation for establishing notability. The entire AfD system would grind to a halt if we gave weight to such claims without substantiation. How would we record such citations in the article - by a link to the AfD where there was a claim about their existence?

As for the two PDFs cited by Daranios in the AfD, please note that six days passed after they were cited before the AfD was closed, and the only interveneing !vote was a Redirect. I don't see why Sandstein was expected to carry out his own source analysis as a closer, especially in the absence of any !vote expressly deeming those sources as RS. The appellant's rebuttal to Piotrus was correct, but neglected to even mention the two identified sources on the AfD. Had Sandstein done his own source analsysis, and used Daranios' sources to overrule the preceding Redirect !votes, he would likely be accused of a supervote.

As for Jclemens' note on Sandstein's Talk page, I see it as unnecessarily combative, but not an actual threat. Under most legal systems, a threat must involve the expression of an intent to carry out an unlawful or punitive action, which clearly isn't the case here. Typically, an appellant would ask the closer for their reasoning, and after some back and forth, one of the two would suggest taking the case to DRV. I like to think Jclemens simply wanted to cut to the chase here. However, I know Jclemens to weigh his words carefully, and therefore cannot escape the conclusion that he chose the belligerent language deliberately. Not a WP:CIVILITY violation per se, but an unnecessary preempive escalation in tone we could have done without. In my dealings with Sandstein, I found him to be very accommodating, and have no doubt this whole thing could have been settled between the appellant and him had Jclemens broached the subject as a question or polite request, rather than as a demand, if not an outright ultimatum. Or as the kids say, "This could have been an email." Owen× ☎ 21:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• My experiences with Sandstein, which span parts of three decades now, do not match yours. I am honestly surprised he felt offended, as I expected him to have understood "threats" precisely as you articulated them. If you look back, you will find plenty of times when I've criticized Sandstein for similar reasoning in discussion closures, so it's not like this is the first time we've clashed on things. However, to those not sharing this same history, this might have looked abrupt, and I should probably have couched things a bit different for their benefit. Again, trying to play the ball not the man here, I did not expect my direct statement to provoke anything like the response articulated here. I'll note that I've asked for clarification on how Sandstein would prefer to have been addressed both at the talk page discussion and here, without any reply in either venue. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per Enos and Owen, but if a relist would better solidify consensus then I guess that can be done. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse I also would have closed that as a redirect without prejudice for recreation. As a closer, I simply don't think keep !voters were persuasive that this character passes WP:GNG on its own. After making that conclusion I performed the source search and viewed the sources in the discussion just to make sure this wasn't redirected in error and that's not clearly the case. SportingFlyer T·C 23:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Relist. I see no consensus that the sources mentioned in the AFD fail notability guidelines, nor do I see consensus to either keep or not keep a standalone article. A second relist, along with the added visibility from from this DRV, May be enough to find a consensus at the AFD. Frank Anchor 04:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Evaluating sources is generally outside the scope of DRV, but listing Slayage at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard could clarify its suitability. Does anyone have WP:Canvassing (guideline) or other concerns? Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Flatscan: Sounds like a good idea to me, and this being somewhat of a niche area of publication, the more editors and projects are pinged for input the better in my view. Daranios (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Seeing Daranios's support and no objections, I posted at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Slayage. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Relist. The final keep !vote was unrebutted, and the closer seriously erred by a) rebutting it himself and b) rebutting it incorrectly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Relist. AfD outcomes should not be overturned because of objections to particularities of the closing statement's content. The new sources came in late, after the discussion had already been relisted once. This AfD was reminiscent of a scenario of really poor sources (or hardly even sources) being brought up as the discussion nears its natural end; it could have been that what is brought up simply lacks relevance and weight for the given discussion. The linked files didn't look great, outwardly. Yet, it was asserted that they are "secondary" sources which contain "enough ... commentary". For multiple days then, no one supported that argument, and the only subsequent comment evaded the question of the sources possibly contributing to notability. Ultimately, this lack of substantive engagement between the keeps and deletes combined with the argument that there exist secondary and substantial sources should have been recognized as a good situation for a relist. It was possible to close as 'no consensus' as well. A consenus to redirect did not exist.—Alalch E. 00:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• On the fence, leaning endorse It's correct that Sandstein mis-identified Slayage as an SPS - it is not. However those sources are awfully light to support an independent article and so the likely correct interpretation of the AfD consensus would probably still be to redirect to the list of Buffy characters. Basically I think Sandstein made the right decision for the wrong reason. Ultimately I don't think we need to overturn the close on the basis that a correct read of consensus was flawed by some incorrect commentary but this is a marginal case. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  The two pdfs were never identified by participants in the discussion as from Slayage, and even if the closer were to hover over the links, one of the pdfs was hosted on "offline.buffy.tv" - which to a casual observer would look like a SPS. - Enos733 (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that commentary on the sources was lacking, but I also think a conclusion, which was not present in the discussion, should not be drawn based on casual observation. Rather, I concur with Cryptic that "best practice is to comment on the afd instead and leave an easier job for the next closer to look at it", meaning a relist with a corresponding question could have clarified what was not clear without closer observation. Daranios (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

26 December 2024

Archive

• Misplaced Pages deletion
• Misplaced Pages maintenance
• Misplaced Pages processes