Wikipedia:Deletion review

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

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

Shortcut

WP:DRVPURPOSE

Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

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);
(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.)
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);
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 Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed); or
for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.

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

Shortcut

WP:DELREVD

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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.
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


1.	Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:drv2 \|page= \|xfd_page= \|reason= }} ~~~~ Copy this template skeleton for files: {{subst:drv2 \|page= \|xfd_page= \|article= \|reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in `page` with the name of the page, `xfd_page` with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and `reason` with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, `article` is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 \|page=File:Foo.png \|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png \|article=Foo \|reason= }} ~~~~
3.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: `{{subst:DRVNote\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~`
4.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach `<noinclude>{{Delrev\|date=2021 October 6}}</noinclude>` to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
5.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2021 October 6}}</noinclude>` If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2021 October 6\|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>`

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express his or her 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.

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.

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

6 October 2021

2 October 2021

Holiest sites in Sufi Islam

Hello, I find step No. 4 and 5 of 'Steps to list a new deletion review' confusing, some pl. do help me out in these 2 steps. Thanks.

I am not sure if this is right request page for the request I am making, pl do guide.

Basically request is for draftify with a changed name and re−purpose from nature of list to an encyclopedic article Draft:Sufi shrine to be built from scratch.

If it is to be built from scratch then why do I want deleted version for Draft? a) for retaining history as mark of respect to the previous contributors b) but major reason is I can seek help of previous contributors in building new article if they are active. Frankly speaking even availability of list of active contributors from the deleted history too will do for me.

Let me transparently mention that I do have my personal reservations against superstitions but I am reasonable in respecting freedom of conscience. Logically may be there is scope for re–examining 'list' part of aspect but my personal reservations are not much in favor of 'lists' though I have indulged in list editing few times, and previously I have not read or edited the list article under discussion. Thanks.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

How would a change of name address the issue of the subject being non-notable / original synthesis? — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I think I have explained, I am not planning to use old 'list' content (unless relevant), I am planning to write an encyclopedic article from scratch as suggested by one of deletion recommending user. Notability of topic Sufi shrine has not been contested in deletion discussion. What was contested is 'list' without proper referencing.

And why O.R.? I do have reasonable experience of writing with proper refs, you can have good faith in me. Any way I can write one in drafts just like that but wish to take help from any active user from deleted article history who might know some nuances of the topic shall be helpful so I think Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I understand. Subject however isn't "Sufi shrine" but "Holiest sites in Sufi Islam". I didn't say OR, but WP:SYNTH. The delete side argued that there is an original synthesis concern -- (1) I don’t see any evidence that this is even a topic, (2) this one really doesn't fit in the mold, simply because there are so many different Sufi sects, and because these would never agree on a specific set of sites as 'the' holiest. Consensus to delete basically formed around the subject being an original synthesis. How would a reformulated subject make it not be an original synthesis anymore? — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The topic Sufi shrine (as opposed to Holiest sites in Sufi Islam) certainly is notable, and we should have an article on it. However, as far as I recall, the deleted article contained nothing at all that would be helpful in writing such an article, which indeed would need to be rewritten from scratch. This primarily means that it should be based on new, reliable and secondary sources that the deleted article did not (again, as far as I recall) give. Also note that we have very closely related articles in Mazar (mausoleum) (the great majority of these are Sufi shrines) and Ziyarat (the practice of visiting a mazar/shrine, again in the great majority of cases Sufi shrines). All in all, it would be much better to look for a few good sources on Sufi shrines and write a one-paragraph stub called Sufi shrine based on that, than to resurrect a non-notable list of supposedly 'holiest' shrines. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Endorse. Good close. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, the close was right, but yes, we should grant the request--or really, acknowledge that any administrator can do what's requested without any input from us--to restore the text to draft so that a refocused article can be written using text as appropriate from the deleted article. Jclemens (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Obviously I support my own close, but any administrator is free to draftify if they wish (and render this DRV moot). Apologies for not getting back to the nominator as promptly as I normally would, I am travelling currently so less available than normal. Daniel (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse the AfD. This should have been a WP:REFUND request for userfication or draftification. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Draftify as requested: while it should have been done at WP:REFUND (or simply by waiting for a response from the deleting admin), there's no need to play pin-the-tail-on-the-noticeboard, per WP:NOTBURO etc. As a sidenote, I don't see the closure as being as unassailable as it might seem: the nominator was a blocked sock, while one of the delete !votes was a discountable WP:JNN (and probably a sock as well, but that's another story). That would leave us with two deletes and one keep, which is arguably in the no-consensus range (or at least worthy of a relist). I won't jump to any conclusions since the close isn't really being challenged here directly, but future editors should be particularly lenient with regards to (e.g.) WP:G4. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- Just for the record: the nominator of the AfD was found out to be a sock 10 days after the closure, so due diligence was met. Also, there's no reason why a subject whose notability was challenged two to one shouldn't go through AfC next time. I'm confident that 'holiest' as a WP:LISTCRIT (which should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources) won't cut it there. But yes, if the nominator doesn't find what they were looking for in Mazar (mausoleum) and Ziyarat (as I actually suspect they will; they might still withdraw this nomination), draftify and rename to Draft:Sufi shrine or similar. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hat tip @ User:Apaugasma. Actually User:Apaugasma's comment @ xfd itself surprised (& inspired) me Wikipedia does not have an independent article Draft:Sufi shrine. Ziyarat is supposed focus on pilgrims association with pilgrimage center. To take care in Sufi pilgrimage center's spirituality and culture I find Mazar (mausoleum) better than Ziyarat itself. But still both the articles happen to be too generalized. Idk if at all there is any dearth of reliable sources on Sufi Shrines? I am guessing large amount of sources on Sufi Shrines should easily become available from copyright free old literature itself and along with some good academic reliable sources why a full length article should not be there exclusively for Sufi shrine I wonder.

Again User:Apaugasma indirectly provided outline for article Sufi shrine, ..what a Sufi shrine is, how and when they originated, what their function is, what role they play in contemporary Islam,.. I am not sure and clear how one would accommodate Sufi specific information in generalized articles Mazar (mausoleum) & Ziyarat. And if any editor decides to push in extra Sufi specific info in generalised articles would risk other editors not allowing on count of not relevant or due enough.

Call can be taken later about whether a draft is worth an independent article or still need to be merged in some other article. I do think that way as of now.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I came across article Dargah which seem to be capable of taking care of Sufi shrine reasonably. I am contemplating to redirect Sufi shrine to Dargah with a hat note to that effect. So as of now I wish to take back nomination my side and if any difficulty arises in redirecting then I will seek advice from admins. Thanks.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Intimated of this discussion to 3 still active users who had contributed to article Dargah (namely User:Batreeq, User:Ekabhishek & User:Wiki31295, if in case they have any view on redirect Sufi shrine → Dargah and this discussion. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Endorse the closure based on strength of arguments, and noting that even when the nominator is thrown away, the Deletes still outnumbered the Keeps. If this is a request to draftify the deleted article, then we should draftify the deleted article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Allow restoration as a draft A reasonable request. Hobit (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse and request for draftify seems reasonable. --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

1 October 2021

Draft:Luca Stricagnoli

deleted without notice while i was editing it and it wasnt waiting for review, i was working with the editor (fade258 who had rejected it the month before. the original was brief and to the point to avoid any unnessary praise, i was asked to add more context so i added more links and headings and it got deleted for advertising. Bbb23 who deleted it, did not reply to my replies on his talk page and when liz told me ways to get it back, he still ignored me so this is my last resort. it was deleted September 16th, thanks for your times Mickmonaghan343 (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Can we get some help identifying the actual title of the article since (presumably speedily) deleted? Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Luca Stricagnoli (2nd nomination). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment - Neither Draft:Luca Stricagnoli nor Luca Stricagnoli appears to be salted. Unless there is something that only admins can see, the appellant can re-create the draft in draft space and submit it, knowing that probably will not be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment - Oh. I see. The appellant was working on a recent version of Draft:Luca Stricagnoli and it was spam, and it was deleted by User:Bbb23 as G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Endorse the deletion of the spam, but the appellant can try again. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Endorse the most recent version of Draft:Luca Stricagnoli was very promotional, some of it was also copied from this blog post. Additionally the draft has now been declined at AfC seven times, so I don't think the OP is likely to come up with a version which is suitable for mainspace. Hut 8.5 09:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse per Hut 8.5. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment i dunno am i suppose to comment here so apologies if i am not, thank you all for the constructive criticism, i appreciate that much more than the sudden deletion and the degrading comment from Bbb23. I apologise if my latest edits were to advertisey. the original one from may this year was suppose to be neutral and to the point. When it was rejected for lack of context, all i could do was make it bigger with more links. anyways thanks again for your time, if i make another i may get in touch and ask your opinions before even considering putting it up for review. Mickmonaghan343 (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Mickmonaghan343: adding more content is the right thing to do it if was rejected for lacking context, the issue was that the content which was added had problems. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and our articles are supposed to describe the subject objectively. Also don't copy content from other websites, that's very likely to be a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 09:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

A [1] German article exists. Why no Italian article? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- They deleted it as non-encyclopedic/promotional. —Cryptic 12:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

29 September 2021

List of longest-living United States senators

I am asking for to overturn the close to a no Consensus close based on AfD participation and based on a procedurally flawed nomination. The closer discounted ivotes based on the fact that the some participants were emotional (one involved a PA) and I acknowledge that the keep participants did not make policy and guideline based arguments. I did ask the AfD closer to reconsider. My experience is that the closer is flippant when editors have issues with their closures. 1,2, 3. I remember a particularly egregious close at DRV and this closer simply ignored the many editors who took issue with their close.

These lists fits exactly into our guideline for lists on WP:LISTCRITERIA and if we look at straight keep/delete opinion 8 (including nominator) favored deletion and 6 favored keeping (yes I know the policy on counting). A no-consensus close does not prohibit a renomination. An example of our consensus procedure will be seen in this DRV: If we had the same result of delete/keep ivotes here this DRV will be a no-consensus and it will result in maintaining the deletion of these four lists.

The second part of my rationale involves a flawed procedure. The nominator added other completely unrelated lists to this AfD nomination after there was a delete participant. List of oldest living members of the Lok Sabha, List of oldest living members of the Rajya Sabha were added after debate started. You can see the nominator added the unrelated lists after the AfD began - this is the original nom with two US related deletions. After the first delete ivote the nominator added unrelated Indian Politician lists. Lightburst (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

~~Overturn~~ /struck nominator self-!vote/ to no-consensus and relist each list unrelated article separately. Lightburst (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I also ask to undelete these lists for the DRV participants. Lightburst (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Endorse The closer did not discount opinions because some participants appeared to be emotional -- their advocacy did not include policy-based arguments (as you say yourself), and what it did contain was attacks. So when the portion of !votes thus referred to is discounted, what remains is a consensus to delete. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you. Procedurally - as an AfD participant I was not aware that the Indian list were added. Perhaps they should be split out. We cannot know if participants all understood that there were four lists. I know how these DRVs go but we should also be concerned with the procedure of slipping in unrelated deletions. Lightburst (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I did include policy arguments, for instance, "a direct quote from your link: 'If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates.'" in response to someone citing a Wikipedia policy against "OTHERSTUFF"; in response to complaints about "SYNTHESIS" I quoted from that link where routine calculations (including the calculation of ages) is wholly permissible, "In the end, those are still calculations. I don't see any rule saying there can only be a limited number of calculations included on a page?????? From Wikipedia:Calculations 'calculating a person's age is almost always permissible.'"; in response to complaints about "TRIVIA" I rebutted that with yet another quote from that link, "I don't believe this violates Wikipedia:Trivia because, as the link states, "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and 'unselective' list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information". This is clearly the latter, a selectively populated list with a narrow theme."; and I paraphrased "NPOSSIBLE" to rebut yet another commenter's complaint, "According to Wikipedia:NPOSSIBLE, articles should be considered based on whether the sources can exist, not on whether the current article links to extant sources. Additionally, some sources have been collected above, proving that sourcing for this article's topic DOES exist". It appears to me that these inconvenient arguments quoting and rebutting people's policies have been ignored in favor of amorphous complaints about "personal attacks". Overall, the deleter ignored strong arguments and selectively chose weak arguments as reasons to delete these pages, preferring a misrepresentation of the "strongest" provided arguments for the "keep" side.

Endorse the closer discounted "arguments" like this which just consist of insulting people who disagree with them. Apart from the fact that personal attacks are strongly discouraged here, comments like this simply aren't valid arguments. The count of six people supporting keeping includes several comments which did not advance a coherent rationale, such as "STOP DELETING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT!", and it would have been entirely legitimate for the closer to discount or downweight them. The other articles this was nominated with are all closely related and nobody in the discussion drew a distinction between them. Hut 8.5 18:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Right WP:CIR - It is too bad a person needs about a year of experience to learn all the ins and outs and acronyms here. I myself had many acronyms hurled at me when I started, and I pleaded for mercy which only got more acronyms. I tend to not penalize people for not understanding how the sausage is made. Lightburst (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I did, in fact, draw a distinction between the US Senators & Representatives articles and the Indian congress articles. See this, "In the American system, the US Congress is equally as important as the US president."

Not using acronyms isn't the issue, it's the complete lack of any coherent argument in some of those comments which is the bigger problem with them. Nor should anybody be surprised that comments which just insult people are ignored. Nobody in that discussion, including you, argued that the situation of any of those articles was any different to the others. The only argument you've put forward for the bundled nomination being invalid is that some of the articles were added after one person had commented, which is nitpicking at best. Hut 8.5 21:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment. I was the nominator, and I did add two more closely related lists to the discussion 5 hours after the original nomination, and after one editor had already commented. As Lightburst linked above, I explicitly called this out in a note in the discussion, so nobody who participated after that time should have been surprised that there were four pages being discussed. The editor who had already !voted (Dronebogus), had recently participated in a number of similar discussions and I felt confident that they wouldn't object to my additions. If I was mistaken, I will apologize to Dronebogus for my presumption. pburka (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Relist A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age where opponents of deletion of a similar page about US Presidents were able to more effectively dispute the wrong-headed arguments for deletion (specifically a cramped reading of Wikipedia policies).

The discussion could have been better, but it was sufficiently thorough. Relisting would very likely be more of the same. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

- - I went out of my way to find sources that disputed others' contentions that this article was not encyclopedic. It does not look like you took that into consideration when the article was deleted; instead the deleter said the opposition was "personal attacks". I did complain that the rules seemed arbitrary and nonsensical, but I would hardly describe that as a personal attack, just an expression of frustration that a page I liked to look at was being deleted and it was not clear how I could stop it. Please reconsider deletion.
Endorse – many of the keep !votes were "based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact" or were "logically fallacious", so the WP:DGFA allows the closer to discount them. The delete !votes were by and large grounded in our policies and guidelines, while the keeps by and large simply weren't. In light of that (and the fact that the deletes were numerically in the majority as well), a delete closure was clearly appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- According to your link, WP:DGFA, three of the four main guidelines for deletion were violated in this case. See "Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" (see below). Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. When in doubt, don't delete." There was not a "rough consensus" because the strongest arguments for the keep side were ignored by the deleter in favor of accusations of personal attacks. The deleter did not respect the feelings of Wikipedia participants, who did not want the page deleted, regardless of how articulate they were. Finally, because there should have been doubt, the bias should have been towards don't delete, flagrantly violated in this instance.
Endorse I went back through and only encountered like one coherent “keep” argument. The others were just variants on “don’t delete it” “it’s popular” “you suck for wanting to delete this” “it’s useful and interesting” etc. We really shouldn’t call AfD votes “votes” because they’re really competing arguments and not simply “ayes” or “nays”. Dronebogus (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Endorse- That's really the only way the discussion could have ended. Commentary such as "STOP DELETING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT" and "you suck for wanting to delete this" does not actually contain a reason for keeping the article. I'm also disappointed, but unsurprised, that coddling the hurt feelings of people who wanted to keep the article is being presented as a reason to overturn consensus, when the feelings of the targets of all those personal attacks are apparently irrelevant. I say unsurprised because personal abuse of AfD nominators and delete !voters has become so routine and commonplace that hardly anyone remarks on it anymore. The closer of this AfD is one of a very, very small number of admins who does push back against it. Reyk _YO! 10:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia has a longstanding and ongoing problem with gerontology-related OR. You could easily reverse the outcome of this AfD by producing independent, reliable sources about the longest-lived people who have served as US senators, but I don't think those sources exist. If they don't, then a much weaker alternative is to claim it's a navigational list, but that's not a source-based argument and the community doesn't agree with it. I can't see how Sandstein could have closed in any other way.—S Marshall T/C 13:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks Marshall. for your measured and articulate response. The record will show that I have appealed several of Sandstein's closes. I never expect to have their decisions overturned. I acknowledged that the participants in this AfD did not know what they were doing. We can all agree that they did know that they wanted to keep. But that is not enough for the Wikipedians. Passion gets laughter from the participants here. Hut 8.5 points out that I am nitpicking. Procedure matters, and as I stated, when I first participated I did not see that the nomination had two unrelated Indian lists added. Sandstein will continue to be snarky and dismissive and I will continue to advocate for participants who do not know how to participate well enough to please the long-time participants here. Again Marshall, thank you for your professionalism. Lightburst (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I challenge you to find a long-serving admin who's not dismissive in a perfunctory way that can come across as snarky when they've been dealing with Wikidisputes as long as Sandstein or another half-dozen admins I can think of who have been doing this for 10+ years. It's a challenge for pretty much every helping profession: after a decade of the same complaints by different people, it's challenging and time consuming to respond to every one as if it were new and fresh, as it is to the requestor in many cases, when it absolutely old hat to the admin in question. Jclemens (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Yes, and particularly after some 15 years of complaints by people who hold sincere and strong views that are at odds with community consensus, but who seem to think that complaining to or about me is going to change that. Nonetheless, I do try to treat every good-faith request courteously and professionally (if perhaps briefly, given time constraints). I welcome feedback by editors (other perhaps than the ones who are currently angry at me because I've taken admin actions they disagree with) if they want to look at my talk page and tell me if they think I come across as inappropriately "snarky or dismissive". I would like to think that I tend not to do that, but it is of course not always easy to notice by oneself. Sandstein 18:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

IMO it's fine to be succinct if the answers given contain the requested information. If others see conciseness as flippant, that's on them. Reyk _YO! 08:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Sandstein did not mock Lightburst. But in the discussion above, the "keep" !voters are given very short shrift. Nobody exactly laughs at them, but nobody above is taking them seriously at all. In context, I would understand those !votes as expressions of distress, from people who feel their views are ignored and their work is casually obliterated. And they have a point: we as a community don't really care what they think, and we don't want this content. All we want is for it to be gone with the minimum of process and fuss. I've sometimes thought that the right solution might be for them to set up a separate gerontology wiki with their own rules.—S Marshall T/C 10:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

That's not a bad idea, but I really think for it to work we need a federated setup for Wikipedia. I've thought this for a long time in fiction, that we would be better off linking to specialist Wikis like Memory Alpha when the level of specificity and "fancruft" exceeds a certain threshold, and point both links and interested editors to these other wikis. Without cross-wiki links, we are simply oublietting (Yes, Verbing weirds language) the editors and content. Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Another WP:Supervote by Sandstein? This time the coherent Keep arguments were dismissed in favor of a "impeachment is routine" argument. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Efforts to impeach Joe Biden (2nd nomination). Roughly 8-8. Contesting here would be rubbish. And a redirect is a delete. Lightburst (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I would suggest that if you want to contest another deletion, start a DRV for it. Alternatively, if you think Sandstein is making a habit of supervoting, a better venue to raise this complaint would be ANI. It's unlikely to accomplish very much here. I took a look at the impeachment AfD and saw that two votes were just bare "keep ~~~~", one was a personal attack on the nominator, one a simple "keep per suchandsuch", one was some irrelevancy about Matt Gaetz. That left about three !votes, including your own, that tried to make an argument for keeping and plenty on the other side who made good arguments to merge or redirect. Reyk _YO! 10:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks Reyk. You an I know how ANI goes: It is a sh&^ show on a good day. And overturning here...As I showed in one of my links above - 11-6 in favor of overturn at DRV was closed as no-consensus by Sandstein. So to recap, 8-8 on an AfD is redirect with the closer choosing a non-policy non-guideline argument. But here an 8-8 would be respected as a no-consensus. I know we do not purely count, but at the same time yes we do. We dismiss IP editors or those who say "per above", but maybe we shouldn't. One other question I have here is would this project have kept an article (with multiple RS, started by an admin) with Trump in the title? Forgive me for ranting and taking time away from building the encyclopedia. I will go try to be productive now. Lightburst (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

We don't dismiss IP editors -- see WP:IPDIS; or discount per exes -- see second paragraph of WP:PERX — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

We don't, but our attitude to them has changed. In days that Lightburst and I both remember well, when an IP editor made an argument unlikely to be taken into account in the close, someone would speak to them about how to make a good argument at AfD. Nowadays we simply disregard them. Wikipedia has become much less engaging for new editors as a result. We're also considerably happier to endorse a close that disregards the !vote count.

I think that this reflects two key changes. First, people writing promotional content ("spammers") have adapted to Wikipedia, and second, Wikipedia has adapted to spammers. These discussions weren't about promotional content -- but they've been caught in the same net, because we've learned to pay less heed to IP editors and to overrule the !vote count. I think Lightburst might be taken aback by the extent of the changes to this place.—S Marshall T/C 14:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I think you'll find that the IP editors were not ignored in this discussion. There were responses to all of the IP participants except the one who wrote STOP DELETING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT. There were even discussions amongst IP editors. pburka (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This information is available in tables at List of former United States senators. I suggest changing lifespan to “age at death, lifespan”, to enable reader sorting by age at death. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse - Either we, at DRV, are reviewing the closer's emphasis on strength of arguments, or the closer's attention to a vote count, or a combination of the two. The Keep arguments were extremely weak, and disregarding them was appropriate. If the closer had been relying primarily on a vote count, the closer should still have discounted IP votes to some extent, because the shifting of IP addresses and the use of multiple devices makes it impossible to ensure that the IP votes are all from different humans. Either way, it was a good close. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I think it is right to give IPs arms-length consideration at AfD. Either they are new and not well versed in Wikipedia standards, mainly Wikipedia-notability, or they are very probably violating WP:SOCK by editing project space while logged out. IP editors lack long term accountability, which is fine in mainspace where the edit is what matters, but is not ok in the back room processes.

I disagree that Wikipedia is less engaging with genuine looking newcomers editing mainspace. If there is sense to their pattern of editing, and some kind of introduction on their Userpage, they get treated as a person. If they have a blue-linked but blank main userpage, and they edit like a WP:SPA, they are probably a WP:UPE using a throwaway account. I try talking to these accounts, but they won’t reply in flowing English, because, I have decided, the don’t want to give away personal style hints that will connect them to their main account.

If Wikipedia is less engaging with newcomers, I think it is because there are so few genuine newcomers. And a large part of the reason is that genuine newcomers get sucked from mainspace into AfC where they are isolated and burned. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment this is largely turning into an off-topic discussion about Wikipedia philosophy, which is all well and good but has no place at a simple debate over reassessing a deleted article that consensus already seems clear about. I’d recommend taking this somewhere more appropriate if you’d like to discuss the implications of the deletion for Wikipedia culture and not the validity of the deletion itself. Dronebogus (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- While I agree with the sentiment, this is a volunteer deliberative body that at its best identifies conflicts in Wikipedia policies and/or practices, a process which can, at its best, highlight needs for revision and generate discussion leading to RfCs. Honestly? That's probably the more important outcome than simply deciding whether a deletion is overturned or not. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Recent discussions

28 September 2021

Luca Soccer Club (closed)

Luca Soccer Club – Overturned to no consensus. Clearly this situation has become an unholy mess of procedural confusion and lack of clarity, between the multiple AFDs and DRVs. There is some support here for the notion that the second AFD could be allowed to stand on its own, with a numerical consensus for deletion, but overall I assess that the procedural concerns raised in the "overturn" !votes have the consensus here in this DRV. The feeling is that the second AFD was (a) out of process, as the first AFD should have been DRVd first, (b) tainted by a failure to notify participants in the first AFD, and (c) affected by the aborted DRV that took place simultaneously with it. There was also the view expressed by SmokeyJoe that the second AFD shouldn't have been closed as delete even by itself, given the GNG evidence presented. The overall decision is therefore amended to a no consensus, with the article restored, and I request that we let the dust settle with a period of at least two months without further AFDs. I further recommend that if editors do wish to renominate in future, they come with evidenced counterarguments to the keep !votes already presented, and make sure to notify everyone who participated already. — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

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

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 September 14

On 11 August, the community decided to keep this article in this AfD. On 12 September, Indianfootball98 nominated it for deletion again. On 14 September, Stalwart111 attempted to convert this very early renomination into a deletion review, which of course it should have been all along; but on 15 September, Spinningspark closed that deletion review on the basis that an AfD was ongoing. In my view Spinningspark's action there was poorly thought through, and it should have been the deletion review that continued, but I let that pass, assuming that in the circumstances, no proper closer could possibly find a "delete" consensus at the AfD. On 19 September, Fenix down did find a "delete" consensus at the AfD, and when challenged about this on his talk page, cited the ratio of "keeps" to "deletes" in what I see as disregard of the DGFA.

This second AfD would benefit from close scrutiny, and I would particularly encourage those reviewing this decision to check the short contribution histories and low edit counts of the "delete" !voters. —S Marshall T/C 12:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Overturn as hopelessly compromised by the procedural errors. Even if that weren't the case, a slew of early delete !votes who don't return to the AfD after further sources are posted should be discounted as not relevant to the sum total of sourcing. I note six initial deletes, most perfunctory, additional sources posted, and then 3-2 keep afterwards, leaving aside the legitimate procedural critiques. In other words, even if this were a brand new AfD, closing as delete with the sourcing discussion trajectory as it is would have been inappropriate; a relist would have been ideal, a no consensus/administrative close also within the realm of closer discretion since the AfD irregularity had been brought to light. But there is no WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS for deletion here, and the vastly different outcome even though the AfDs were both posted to all the same DELSORT lists suggests that some sort of inappropriate influence cannot be ruled out. Jclemens (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn the second AfD; do NOT allow another Afd; if desired, open another Deletion Review on the first AfD. What a mess! After the first Afd, immediately opening a second AfD was disruptive; perhaps that was through ignorance, but insisting it remain open was disruptive without excuse. Closing the deletion review as a procedural matter was a mistake, since the reason for the review was procedural error in the second AfD. By the time Fenix down got to the second AfD, they were put in an impossible position; no decision would have been any good. At this point, the best we can do is pretend the second AfD never happened, and that the first deletion review never happened. If someone is unhappy with the first AfD, open a new (third) Deletion Review. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse I absolutely disagree that the second AfD should have been a DRV, and I'm surprised to see people suggesting it. DRV is an appropriate venue for discussing procedural issues with deletion discussions, or mistakes made by closers. It's not a venue for discussing whether the subject is notable, and that's the concern the nominator of the second AfD had. If they had opened a DRV with that rationale they would have been told "DRV is not AfD round 2", so they opted to start AfD round 2 instead. While a month is rather soon to reopen the issue, the second AfD had far more participation and more detailed analysis of the sources, so I think it is a rather better discussion and the result should stand. Hut 8.5 07:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- I certainly disagree with this. In the past, we've had to deal with editors whose attitude was: That consensus is wrong and the relistings will continue until this crap article is deleted. Most of them are topic-banned or site-banned now, because the community does take a dim view of rapid renomination, and rightly so.—S Marshall T/C 14:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  - I can definitely understand the view that the second AfD was inappropriate because of the short time between nominations, however I don't understand the advice to go to DRV instead. If we want to stop people renominating that soon then we should just tell them not to renominate so soon, rather than telling them to go to DRV. Hut 8.5 16:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Request temp-undeletion.

Can we confirm whether everyone from AfD1 was notified of AfD2? If not, that alone is a reason to overturn. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

No, that isn't a reason to overturn. There is no requirement for a new AFD to notify participants of an old AFD. While I would support doing that, it is actually quite rare for it to happen. SpinningSpark 08:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Yes it is, considering combination with the rapid renomination that is normally not ok. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Agree wth Smokeyjoe that it is a bit stealthy to relist without notifying those who have debated in good faith in the recent past. Not required but a bit stealthy nonetheless. Lightburst (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

To reiterate: Yes, it is. Jclemens (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Link to the guideline that so requires that action please. SpinningSpark 16:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

WP:NOTBURO and WP:BEANS. Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

That just says to me that you agree that there is no such guideline. Citing pages that could just as easily be cited by the other side is meaningless other than confirming that you have no argument. SpinningSpark 12:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Request temp-undeletion.

The consternation over a small new soccer club seems out of proportion.

AfD2 has more quality input than AfD1, and it did already when the rapid renomination complaint occurred.

Rapid renominations are a bad idea because they rarely develop the discussion, but this one did.

Ideally, the AfD2 should be considered a continuation of AfD1. AfD1 participants should have been invited to participate in AfD2. Some did.

The AfD2 closer, User:Fenix down, is remiss in not commenting on the "keep" "consensus" in AfD1. User:Fenix_down, could you make that comment now? Did you close of AfD2 consider all the arguments present in AfD1? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Request temp-undeletion. It is essential to see what the !voters were looking at, in both AfD1 and AfD2. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Done. I had seen your request but left it to others as I am a little involved here. SpinningSpark 12:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks. It took me a long time to work out why you considered yourself involved. (the Sept 13 DRV close). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I wouldn't have thought soft undeletion is something that you need to worry about from an INVOLVED point of view. It's pretty much routine for contested AFDs where the result was delete, unless the DRV is so lacking in merit that it's not even worth continuing with it. — Amakuru (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Endorse The question here is there are procedural errors that override the closure of the underlying AfD. The only procedural question I see is the strength of the guidance in the WP:RENOM essay. While I think the essay is quite good, the essay only provides a suggestion. Without any procedural errors, we must judge the underlying discussion. The strongest case for a relist was that the last five bolded keep/delete comments split 3-2 for keep. However, the last two were delete comments, so there was no clear trajectory of later comments. A closer should not discount early comments for being early, especially in this case where one editor quickly provided a detailed analysis of the sourcing used in the article. --Enos733 (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- You're correct to refer to the rules, and you're correct to say that RENOM is an essay. For the guideline, please see the third limb of WP:PCLOSE: it says (lightly paraphrased) that hasty renominations that boil down to an objection about the outcome of a previous AfD should be procedurally closed (which means closed without result) and listed at DRV instead. This is what Stalwart111 did, and this is why I say that Spinningspark was wrong to reverse Stalwart111's action.—S Marshall T/C 10:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  - If that indeed was what the DRV nominator had done, that might well have been my action. But the DRV nomination was not challenging the outcome of a previous AFD, they actually supported that outcome. Rather, they were objecting to the opening of a second AFD. The correct procedure under those circumstances is to call for speedy close from within the AFD, not to open a DRV on a discussion that is still ongoing. That's for the simple reason that at that stage there is no decision to endorse or overturn. SpinningSpark 12:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    - I'm sorry, I'm really confused by this reply and I don't understand it at all. To me, Stalwart111's deletion review nomination seems mostly consistent with the third limb of WP:PCLOSE, except that Stalwart111 didn't actually close the AfD. He had the right idea though -- Stalwart111 was saying that if Indianfootball98 wanted to challenge the outcome of the previous AfD (which he did, from his AfD nom), then DRV was the place to do it. But that led to two parallel discussions happening at once. In my view, the correct way to regularize this would have been to procedurally close the AfD, not procedurally close the DRV. I've tried to follow the argument to the contrary and I can't see how it makes sense.—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      - It's quite simple. The order of events needs to be pclose AFD2, THEN open a DRV on AFD1. Now I accept your criticism that I could have closed it myself. I did not do so, because as I said in my DRV close, I would have felt uncomfortable closing a discussion that had become so well developed. By the way, no one referred to PCLOSE in either discussion. SpinningSpark 14:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
        Someone did indeed refer to PCLOSE, in this edit.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
        Not exactly. Mentioning procedural closure is not the same as referring to the guideline. That is, pointing out that the guideline has something significant to say regarding the case in hand. SpinningSpark 12:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        People closing discussions should either know the rules, or else be willing to look them up. When we mention a guideline, it shouldn't be necessary tell the closer what that guideline says.—S Marshall T/C 14:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        As I said, the guideline was not actually mentioned. I think you have an idealistic view of the superhuman abilities of administrators. Show me the administrator who knows every word of policy and guidelines off by heart and I'll resign immediately (besides which, the body of guidelines is edited on a daily basis). Contrary to what you say, AFD participants who want their arguments to be given weight by the closer need to explicitly say what guideline(s) they are arguing from. SpinningSpark 14:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        How do you view that debate in the light of the guidelines that I've now told you about?—S Marshall T/C 16:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        I'm not sure which debate you mean. I wasn't responsible for closing AFD2 so no comment on that. I don't think it changes my close of DRV1 for the reasons I've already given. The nom called for AFD2 to be closed, not for AFD1 to be reviewed (they only said DRV is where the nom of AFD2 should go) and the only two bolded !votes were for speedy close because AFD2 was still ongoing. The debate had so thoroughly gone down that path that to try and force it back on to a PCLOSE#3 procedure would be either impossible or at best hopelessly confusing. Close and refocus was the only sensible course to my mind. SpinningSpark 16:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        Had I simply come across the second AFD during a wander through the AFD logs I probably would have non-admin closed it as being out of process, with the suggestion that the nominator take their grievance here to DRV. But my involvement in the previous AFD (only a month earlier) would have made that a WP:BADNAC. So I didn't. Instead, I argued it should be closed (within the AFD, as suggested), and brought it here so that it could be highlighted as out of process and closed by an uninvolved admin. Unfortunately, the nature of football-related AFDs (and the related WikiProject) is that by the time anyone else saw it, there were already a slew of non-policy !votes for deletion. So DRV1 was closed before the AFD could be closed, but it is still absolutely the case that the AFD should have been closed. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        Yes, very BADNAC. So why not admin closure? Instead of closing it oneself procedurally as an involved non-admin, one could have asked an administrator to do it. The "unfortunately" part actually starts when an ongoing AfD can't be reviewed at DRV (and can't be effectively procedurally corrected under WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE by switching the venue to DRV because the reason for renomination is not DRV-worthy). — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        Indeed, I asked a group of uninvolved admins with a working knowledge of deletion processes (right here) to do exactly that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  - I would note that the guideline in WP:PCLOSE describes an immediate renomination. To me, a month between AfDs does not feel "immediate." --Enos733 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn per Jclemens. NW1223_{(Howl at me|My hunts)} 17:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn to null outcome Spent a long time debating this one. On one hand "it's just an essay" on the other hand, this is not behavior that AfD could really support. If there was something special about the prior AfD, fine. But there doesn't appear to be. We can't just keep doing this over and over until the delete side gets what they want (because the recreation bar is much higher than the "send it to AfD again" bar). And not just because "the delete side wins" but because AfD can't support having a redo every time someone doesn't like the result. Let's wait for WP:RENOM and then we can discuss it again. RENOM isn't always required, but there should be a darn good reason for when it's not. No such reason was given. Hobit (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse. I would disregard the procedural issues raised by the appellant with respect to the first AfD and DRV. In my view, it does not matter whether the closure of the first AfD and DRV was correct, because we have a more recent decision "on the merits" before us: the second AfD. It is this most recent closure that we should now review, and I see no benefit in reviewing earlier discussions. As to the second AfD, the appellant does not really substantiate why they believe it was wrongly closed. They are of the view that citing the ratio of "keeps" to "deletes" is a disregard of the WP:DGFA, but they do not explain why that is so. Numbers do matter to some extent in AfDs, in addition to the weight of the arguments advanced. The appellant also remarks on "the short contribution histories and low edit counts of the "delete" !voters", but in my view these edit counts are not so low as to suggest sock- or meatpuppetry, and I don't see why else these views should be discounted. A case for doing so could be made if their arguments were unfounded in policies and guidelines, but apart from one person ("the club is so irrelevant") that doesn't seem to be the case to me. For lack of a convincing reason to question the closer's judgment, I would not overturn their closure. Sandstein 14:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Additionally, with respect to the arguments about WP:RENOM above: Compliance with WP:RENOM (an essay, I note, and therefore a text of no particular authority) is an argument on the merits and belongs at AfD, not DRV. It would therefore have been an argument to make in the second AfD for keeping the article or closing the AfD without a result. That argument was indeed made by some in the second AfD, but did not obtain consensus. It is not for us at DRV to substitute our judgment for that of the AfD participants. Sandstein 14:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I must say, I do rather object to the characterization of this as "procedural issues". In rapid succession, we have the same discussion, different decision-makers, opposite results. In the circumstances, how can we possibly have confidence in our decision making processes?—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

We can't, but we've never pretended that Wikipedia is good at consistent decision-making. Our decisions tend to be decided by whoever bothers to show up, which is often quite random. Sandstein 18:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

If our decisions were random, and if it was acceptable to redo a discussion promptly after closure, then I could just keep re-starting the same discussion until my preferred outcome was reached. I have to ask: If the contributors to AfD #1 wanted their views to be given weight in the close of AfD #2, would they need to copy/paste them into the new AfD? Should I have pinged them all during AfD #2 so this could happen?—S Marshall T/C 09:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@S Marshall: Well, that's how AfDs work, for better or worse. The people who participate in them get to decide the outcome, but that outcome is not permanent: an article can be renominated if not deleted, or recreated if deleted. Pinging previous AfD participants is OK, as long as it is not done in an one-sided manner so as to amount to canvassing. If we want our deletion decisions to be consistent, we'd need to delegate them to a permanent Deletion Committee, but I don't think that there would be community consensus for that, and it wouldn't scale sufficiently to deal with the number of deletion requests we have. Sandstein 09:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Well, I don't see it quite that way. For as long as I've been editing, the community has always frowned on rapid renomination after a "keep" closure at AfD. I've been citing WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED as an argument to avoid since 2009, and indeed I see that that redirect was created in 2007. I do realize that WP:ATA is an essay and you're unimpressed by essays. I wonder whether we need an RfC to establish whether the community does frown on it.—S Marshall T/C 13:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

That's peculiar, since I'm sure you've expressed distaste for WP:ATA on more than one occasion, such "One of the worst things about Wikipedia deletion processes is ATA, an essay that consists entirely of a list of things that some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say." in Dec 2019. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

ATA does tell us what the community thinks about deletion discussions. It's true that I personally disagree with a lot of the thought behind ATA and I would love to deprecate large parts of it.—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Sandstein: The slippery-slope argument is then "is it okay with you if many of our keep discussions result in an immediate relisting?". That seems like it has the potential to be quite disruptive. Would you be okay with delete outcomes also being immediately relisted and a "keep" outcome in those resulting in a restoration of the article? Hobit (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

No, it would not be okay with me if many of our "keep" outcomes result in an immediate renomination (not relisting). That would be a waste of community time. But I'd say so in the overhasty second AfD, and if enough people agreed, the AfD would be closed as speedy keep. But that argument is one for AfD participants to make, and they did not do so here. It's possible to make the case that WP:RENOM should be a policy or guideline, but right now it is not, and so we should not pay it any heed here. With respect to a "delete" outcome being immediately contested, that is in fact possible even now: everybody is free immediately after a deletion to request draftification and to recreate the article; if it is sufficiently different from the deleted version (which is often very easy to do) it will need another AfD to delete. Sandstein 18:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Endorse: Despite me making some procedural errors, the second AFD had clear consensus to delete the article. Indianfootball98 (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn to null outcome: I would not disregard the procedural issues. WP:RENOM is very helpful here as it documents best practices -- no one here is saying that it doesn't. Saying that something is an essay doesn't answer the question of what the most opportune recourse is. Incidentally, the problem of too-soon renominations is addressed in a guideline: WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE: Nomination is an immediate objection to a prior deletion outcome. This nomination was an immediate objection to a prior deletion outcome. A possible correction is specified: List it at deletion review .... This correction is good when the objection as expressed in the deletion nomination itself is composed of arguments that would work at DRV... but when same reasons are classic deletion arguments, porting the discussion over to DRV would mean instant relitigating -- not a proper use of this venue. The reasons for renomination were that... "club fails NFOOTY". I mean... seriously? This immediate objection would not work at DRV so the aforementioned correction would not be a feasible solution.
This makes the deletion discussion incorrigibly procedurally compromised, and the only proper way to close would have been a PROCEDURALCLOSE. Instead it was closed with a material finding of consensus, and it couldn't have been. This means that there were substantial procedural errors, and the close needs to be overturned.
S Marshall says that during the previous DRV of this same AfD it should have been the deletion review that continued, and the AfD that was closed. I agree per above that the AfD should have been procedurally closed (not even contingent on a DRV close, but by any administrator who'd treat it as non-constructive in light of WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE and WP:RENOM), but also, that the DRV should have been speedily closed (as it was). So I'd have shut everything down, and told interested parties to wait, and to use the right venues if and when they have the right reasons. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- That's a better argument than I made. +++. Hobit (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- The question is whether and AfD made a month after the close of the first AfD is equivalent to "immediate" as described in WP:PCLOSE. I don't think the timing leads to a clear violation of the guideline and I don't see anything to indicate the nomination was in bad faith. --Enos733 (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I disagree that the second AfD was "incorrigibly procedurally compromised". It cannot be so for violating RENOM, because that page is an essay and therefore cannot establish correct renomination procedure in a manner that binds other editors. I agree that PCLOSE, as a guideline, is applicable to this case, but being a guideline rather than a policy, it can be overridden by local consensus, such as in an AfD. If editors had made PCLOSE-based arguments in the AfD, the closer would have been required to give such arguments considerable weight, but such arguments were made only by @S Marshall and @Stalwart111. I can't fault the second AfD closer for not giving these two (even if persuasive and guideline-based) opinions determining weight in the face of every other AfD participant who wanted to discuss the notability of the topic on its merits. I would therefore still not overturn the second AfD, even if I can now better see the argument for doing so. Sandstein 09:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Relist: I don't think the issue here, is the odd history of AFD/DRV/2nd AFD ... but that in the second AFD, that the close was premature, and should have been given at least another week. Saying that it should be deleted on a 9-3 vote, suggests that the closer has a fundamental misunderstanding how AFD works. WP:GAFD is clear it's not a vote, but a discussion. In that discussion of 9 "delete votes", 7 of them were right at the beginning, before any reasons to keep it were provided. Then there were 3 keep votes, followed by 2 more deletes, one of which seemed a bit pointy. None of the earlier 8 users who endorsed the delete, returned to the discussion after reasons to keep it were presented, other than Muur's non-sequitur. Consensus was never reached - particularly after the clear Keep AFD day's earlier. Another option is close as no consensus, with no prejudice against relisting. Nfitz (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

It wasn't "AFD/DRV/2nd AFD ..." but AFD 1 / AFD 2 ongoing / DRV 1 / AFD 2 closed / DRV 2 (this). — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I was listing it by the closure sequence ... but that's not my point at all. My point was about the poor AFD2 closure. Nfitz (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Overturn (though I would think my opinion was obvious by now). Obviously I had a problem with the closer's vote-count (under the circumstances) and said so at his talk page. I would have brought this here myself were it not for the fact that I've been swamped with school holidays (vacation) activities. I brought it to DRV when the second AFD was first opened in the hope someone would close that second (out-of-process) AFD and review the original AFD instead (if that's what the nominator of the second AFD wanted). That discussion was closed. Fundamentally, those who expressed a view in favour of deletion cited WP:NFOOTY and the second AFD featured a disingenuous list of sources and whether or not they should be considered valid. But that list was deeply flawed and multiple people said so. On the other hand, multiple people provided sources to confirm the subject meets WP:GNG and given that WP:NFOOTY does not supersede that guideline, !votes that relied on WP:NFOOTY really hold no value. Add to that the personal attacks and WP:POINTY contributions from a couple of the !delete voters who had their unrelated AFD nominations SNOW closed elsewhere... the second AFD shouldn't have been opened, should have been closed when it was brought here the first time, and shouldn't have been closed as anything other than a result that aligned with the only policy-based arguments in the discussion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I suggest that a better procedure for dealing with an AFD that needs to be urgently closed would have been to request assistance at ANI rather than opening a DRV. SpinningSpark 12:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Absolutely this. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
This is probably correct, but ANI is a cross between an eternal flame and dumpster fire, so I find it hard to fault any editor with a modicum of common sense for trying to find any other appropriate venue first. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Amen to that. One can always approach administrators individually of course, but a bit or work is needed to find one active at that moment. SpinningSpark 16:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Yes, I could have. But rather than asking an individual admin (to implement my personal desired outcome) I brought it here so that it could be reviewed impartially and so that any number of admins familiar with deletion and related procedure (and uninvolved with either AFD) could action a close. But that idea was rejected. Bureaucracy is a wonderful thing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Overturn (no consensus, and procedurally compromised). AfD2 is not a strong consensus, and the closing statement is inadequate. There were persuasive "Keep" !votes,

Henriklars (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2021 makes an analysis of the sources, and was persuasive to many. However, Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2021, offered five sources, and of these #2,3,4 are good enough. Henriklars source analysis is criticised, but Nfitz's is not.

St★lwart111 and Eastmain also make good "keep" !votes.

The closer's perfunctory statement implies a strong consensus, which there is not. The procedural irregularity, loudly complained about during the process, may have poisoned the discussion. End the end, the discussion was poor, key sources were not discussed.

There are multiple reasons for why quick relisting is discouraged. One of them is that an AfD discussion so soon after the previous one tends to be of lower quality. This happened here. A lot more words were posted, but few of the words were directing to why the best sources weren't good enough. Overturn to "no consensus", and follow WP:RENOM and do not allow a fresh AfD nomination until at least two months after the close of this DRV discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

At the time when Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 September 14#Luca Soccer Club was open, it "looked" like AfD2 was proceeding with a quality that eclipsed AfD1. However, after the close of that DRV discussion, AfD2 went downhill. I don't fault the close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 September 14#Luca Soccer Club, but the failure of that action to top AfD2 should not be read as an endorse of the too soon AfD2. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

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

22 September 2021

Timothy J. Edens – Resolved: closer has reverted their own closure. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

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

Complicated AFD that should not be closed by a non-Admin, discussion should have been extended and only an Admin should close Mztourist (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Mztourist, if you want it undone that's fine. I have no objections to letting an admin close it. Can we just revert my edits to undo the close? ––FormalDude talk 06:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

FormalDude I really don't know the process, I assume you can just undo it. thanks Mztourist (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

No problem, Mztourist. I've undone my closure and the AFD is now open again. ––FormalDude talk 06:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]