Wikipedia:Deletion review

This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

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

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed); or
9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.

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

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

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=2022 March 21}}</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=2022 March 21}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2022 March 21|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

21 March 2022

Brett Perlmutter

Brett Perlmutter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

believe the closer of the discussion incorrectly interpreted that consensus was not reached. All comments supported deletion, except for comments from the account that created the page in the first place, and who has made few other contributions to Wikipedia. Some comments supported merging some data into existing article, but consensus appeared to be for deletion Ksoze1 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn Consensus was reached. Only disagreement came from the user who created the BLP under discussion. Said user's only contribution to Wikipedia was the creation of this BLP. Discussion supported the assertion that the subject fails to meet the notability requirement. Only disagreement came from the article creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoze1 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Your listing here implied that you wish to overturn the decision, so adding a further bolded comment may incorrectly lead the closer here to believe that there is more support for overturn than there is. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Additionally, that comment is factually incorrect. As well as the article creator, the original AFD nominator was in favour of some merging, as were two other contributors. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    • You are correct. What I meant was that the lack of consensus was whether to delete outright or to delete and merge some data. From what I can tell, the only editor who argued for keeping the BLP was the creator. I do believe that consensus is possible outside of SadHaas and Lobsteroll's comments Ksoze1 (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    Clarifying here: I was the original article creator and was not in favor of merging or deleting. Consensus was not achieved. Lobsteroll (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Relist. I'm curious whether Stifle realized that the discussion had just been relisted only seven hours earlier. It apparently hadn't been successfully removed from the old AfD log, so it probably looked as though a week had already elapsed post-relist. In any event, I agree with BD2412's relisting comment that further input from experienced editors is needed. The discussion had a high proportion of inexperienced editors making questionable arguments and !voting multiple times, and there's a reasonable change that a second week of discussion will yield higher-quality participation. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Now that is a valid point and something I missed. Whilst there is no requirement that a relisted discussion be left open for a full week, it might well have been better to leave open and see what develops. If User:Ksoze1 would be satisfied by that, I am happy for the AFD to be speedily reopened and relisted for another week. Should that happen, I would ask that whoever performs that task strike all the duplicate !votes, which I had to wade through. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    Absolutely satisfied for discussions to be reopened. I think additional commentary would be very helpful in deciding outcome, and agree that duplicate votes should be struck. Ksoze1 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    Keep AFD closed. Very Clear that this was a no consensus case. Very clear also that Perlmutter meets BLP requirements of noteworthiness for more than one event. Reopening for discussion is totally unnecesarry . Lobsteroll (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    Hi Stifile. I think this discussion page is a good indicator of the !votes that are to amount to a non consensus should the page be relisted. Lobsteroll (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    Note SadHaas' contribs seem to be only about this entry Lobsteroll (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment @user:Extraordinary Writ, per Stifle's confirmation that this should be speedily reopened and relisted for another week, would you be open to blacking out the close (BD2412's relist is already on the page) so that the original relisting can be fulfilled? To honor concerns voiced by the original creator of the article, I feel that a more experienced user should take this step Ksoze1 (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse. Relisting was indeed unnecessary here as no clear consensus was reached. I created original page but other users did not support deleter or merging, as Perlmutter DOES meeting BLP notability requirements. See original discussion. AFD should remain closed / not relisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobsteroll (talk • contribs) 16:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Relist. Agree with BD2412's relisting comment that further input from experienced editors is needed. Seven hours post relisting was insufficient for additional commentary from experienced users — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadHaas (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

20 March 2022

Template:Movenotice

Template:Movenotice (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Now, we do have a similar template (Template:Title notice) that is automatically added by RMCD bot. Originally, some people suggested that the template be made into a bot-only template, as seen at https://web.archive.org/web/20120620141501/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Movenotice and the 2012 TfD. But now we do have such a template.

I propose in this DRV that the following be done:

• Undelete the old edits for Template:Movenotice and history merge them to Template:Title notice.
• Undelete Template talk:Movenotice and move it to Template talk:Title notice/Archive 1. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment: here is the TfD that resulted in deletion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sure I am missing the point here, but what problem is this proposal solving and/or how is it improving the encyclopaedia? --81.100.164.154 (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• What will this usefully accomplish? Stifle (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

19 March 2022

Category:Conservatives

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

Since its deletion as a category in December 2008 and after 14 years, enough articles and categories have been created to more accurately determine who is conservative on English Wikipedia (just as the same category exists in other languages), being this is the main argument for its elimination, the supposed ambiguity between what is conservative and what is not (see Category:Conservatism). Conservatism is a political, social, intellectual, and religious movement just like any other, such as liberals, libertarians, communists, socialists, anarchists, etc. See as a reference of all these movements Category:People by political orientation. I ask that its removal be reviewed and reconsidered for a correct categorization on Wikipedia. Igallards7 (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse the 2008 deletion as the main function of DRV. Advice: The category needs a parent article. Would it be Conservatist? That redirects to page that diesn't use the term, let alone define. Ensure the parent article gives an objective definition. Then, start a fresh CfD and request permission to re-create. Category expertise is at CfD, not DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  DRV won’t enforce this 14-year-old deletion, and DRV won’t give blessing for any particular category either. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  With all the content that already exists in the encyclopedia, it is only enough to add the members of a political party that call themselves conservative in their name or people who publicly identify themselves as conservatives in a literal way, without giving room for interpretation. Igallards7 (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Really interesting nomination. I see we've got a Category:Jewish fascists but Category:Conservatives is a redlink. Subject to what others might say here, personally I don't see why you can't just create the category. We don't enforce decisions as old as that CfD. I will say that "conservative" means different things in different places, just as "republican" does. (In my own home country there's virtually zero overlap between conservatives and republicans because Conservatives are a major political party that respects the monarchy and republicans are a small political movement dedicated to removing it.)—S Marshall T/C 10:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe in that case it is necessary to create the respective subcategories of "conservatives by nationality", because we already have here enough information on Category:Conservatism by country. In other words, we can categorize specifically what conservatism is but not who conservatives are. Igallards7 (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  The closing admin of the discussion apparently disagrees with that view on the applicability of G4, as they speedy deleted a recreation per G4 in 2020. But then they also abruptly stopped editing 8 months ago, so their view is less relevant. On the merits, Endorse and Oppose recreation, as I don't see how any of the arguments that lead to the 2008 deletion are less valid today; we still don't tolerate vague/subjective categories, which was the primary argument for deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

17 March 2022

The Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights

The Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

no consensus at all Abs11a (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'd have called that "no consensus" too. The "weak keep" !votes seem well-considered and source-based and they do a good job of explaining why that was a close call. The Guardian source is at once useful and problematic. A more difficult question is whether the "delete" close was within discretion. That looks arguable either way to me and I wouldn't say it's a slam dunk overturn for me. I wish the AfD had done more thinking about merge or redirect targets.—S Marshall T/C 14:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Note if consensus emerges to re-list, etc. no objection to my page protection being removed. It was solely to stop the editing of a closed AfD since it didn't appear clear to Abs11a that that wasn't the way to handle their objections to the close. Neutral on the appeal, I did not review the discussion/merits, was solely an early relister when there was no input Star Mississippi 14:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. No delete !vote was lodged after the last relist, which, if there had been a consensus to delete, the discussion would not have been relisted. Relisting was done too many times already for it to be viable again. The debate is certainly poor, but when you have a bunch of people arguing about notability rather than core policies like V with no clear voice, it's problematic to say that that constitutes a consensus for either keeping or deleting, but WP:DGFA make it clear "When in doubt, don't delete". Certainty of the closing admin exceeding the certainty of the discussion is clearly not what was intended here. Jclemens (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Borderline. I'm not going to endorse this but it's not entirely wrong either. I would have draftified this. Four relists though, two of which were after no comments whatsoever? Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Endorse and I may not be unbiased at this point, but this is a case where the appellant has provided more noise than signal, including by edit-warring a closed discussion, and has detracted from the case that they might have made. The closer has explained their close. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• overturn to NC there was nothing that could be called a clear consensus for deletion there. And while the delete arguments are slightly stronger, a "weak keep" is perfectly reasonable. Hobit (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yeah, had I been closing this I would have ended up somewhere between "delete" and "no consensus" and probably defaulted to the latter. It's an edge case - it seems like there are reasonable arguments on either side but the deletes go into a tiny bit more details on why they find the sources inadequate. With that in mind, I see why it was relisted so many times. I'd say weak overturn to NC with an emphasis on "weak". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Vladislav Sviblov

Vladislav Sviblov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• During the discussion, no answers were given to the arguments against the removal
• References to sources were completely ignored. For example, such as Forbes
• Is the article about the owner of the largest gold mining company in Russia insignificant? Валерий Пасько (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse as the right close to the discussion. This does not mean that the subject is not notable. The AFD was not primarily about notability. The AFD was primarily about the article being junk (which does mean that a new article can be submitted in draft for review, but this one has been deleted). The existence of reliable sources in an article does not mean that the article must be kept. The participants in the AFD probably decided that the coverage either was not significant or was not independent and secondary. So the close was valid. The submitter may submit a new draft for review, but that isn't what they are asking here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Валерий Пасько, it would be helpful if you would create a draft stub page and list WP:THREE sources. Maybe the sources were non-independent. Maybe the deletion should be read as WP:TNT. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Closer No other option for the close, but as the above two editors say, that does not mean it is non-notable. I did look at a few sources in translation and they mainly appeared to be about the company rather than the owner, but even if this had not been the case I could not have supervoted over the consensus. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• As it happens, I've just been reading an academic study of the performance of translation algorithms from Russian to English (which is here if you're interested). Basically, machine translations are not reliable for this language pair, even though they're two Indo-European languages. We need humans who're fluent in Russian here.—S Marshall T/C 21:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  This has been an interest of mine. Western European languages, and Arabic, Persian and Chinese, google translate very well, but Russian involves a lot of expressions that can be erroneously interpreted as wordiness. Other examples, Japanese and Indonesian, google translate unreliably or poorly, for reasons that I think are best summarised as common mixing of different forms of their language. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many articles in the Russian Wikipedia do not have sources on English-language sites at all. I noticed this when I translated and posted articles about Soviet military heroes Валерий Пасько (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse no other way to close it. Agree with SmokeyJoe--if you think you have the sources, list the best three or four here. If they are good enough, recreation is viable. But looking at the cached article, I'm not seeing much. Hobit (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• I created a draft of the article. Here are three in my opinion extensive sources. If you have problems with the translation of incomprehensible expressions of the Russian language, feel free to contact me

extensive material on the activities of Sviblov with criticism [1]

about the purchase of a large gold deposit by Sviblov [2]

About Sviblov and his activities [3]

Валерий Пасько (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You wrote this draft: Draft:Vladislav Sviblov. It is a copy of the deleted article? Attribution problem.

You gave three sources, thank you. 1 looks good. 2 won't download for me. 3 looks good. In the draft, this, Financial Times, is classified at WP:RSPSS as a reliable source. It's behind a paywall. Could you quote an excerpt of independent commentary. Regardless, these sources have more merit than the source analysis at the AfD afforded them.

Overturn (relist) for an analysis of these proffered best sources. The AfD was inadequate in deleting on the basis of junk sources but not directly looking at the best source. Give User:Валерий Пасько more time to present these best sources and invite the other participants to comment on these sources. It would be helpful to remove the junk sources and any content based on junk sources. User:Валерий Пасько stated early in the AfD that he had removed stuff, but I suspect that this one simply escaped attention. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

15 March 2022

Avataro Sentai Donbrothers

Avataro Sentai Donbrothers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A New Draft was created to address issues regarding verifiability and notability. Requesting undeletion. Exukvera (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Allow Review of Draft, as in no action required from DRV. The deleted article had no references, as I noted in the nomination. The title was not salted and the draft can be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Will the review process take long? Exukvera (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Typically between one and two weeks.—S Marshall T/C 09:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Interpret the request as a request for History Merge of Avataro Sentai Donbrothers onto Draft:Avataro Sentai Donbrothers. I suggest doing this. It will allow easy checking for whether the new draft overcomes the reasons for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avataro Sentai Donbrothers. Based on some comments at the AfD, this is plausible. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The history has already been mangled enough, thank you, no. —Cryptic 04:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• The article cited eleven sources at deletion. Five weren't independent, two seem trivial, and there's two print sources I don't have access to. This and this, though, were enough to invalidate the delete comments, all of which either claimed the article was completely unreferenced or made no actionable argument for deletion at all. I'm no fan of relisting afds, but that's what was called for here, not a delete close on strength of argument. Overturn; start a new afd if someone wants; don't just relist the old one as-is, since it contains no usable arguments either way. —Cryptic 04:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • User:Cryptic - Are you saying that eleven sources were added between the time of nomination and the time that the AFD was closed? If so, why didn't the originator at least state that the sources were added and request a Relist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 20:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Probably because they're better at creating content than dealing with backoffice wikipolitics. A better question is, how come the afd nominator didn't watchlist the article? —Cryptic 05:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Was the same editor editing mainspace and draftspace at the same time?
  I Endorse the "Delete" close of the AfD, I read it as a consensus to delete, at best call it WP:TNT. Advise Exukvera (talk · contribs) to try moving forward with the draft, and require submission through AfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • • User:SmokeyJoe - Editing in mainspace and in draft space at the same time is more common than it should be. It may be done either out of ignorance, or to confuse the jury (that is, confuse the editors in the AFD), and it makes history merge nearly impossible. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Someone created the article while the draft was being cooked. The article had few to none material which prompted an AfD. We tried to put the draft content into the main article but the discussion was closed and the article deleted. I even attempted to move the draft to the main article, but this led to both being deleted and we had start the draft from zero (Exukvera (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC))

  You seem to be indicating that there was nothing additional in the forked mainspace page. Why are you asking for undeletion? It will not be undeleted into mainspace. What are you asking for? What do you want? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  I tried to move the new upgraded draft to main article and someone deleted claiming that it was previously deleted via AfD and only could be reverted with a DRV(Exukvera (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC))

  Who told you that? Please link.

  I am now guessing that this DRV is a challenge to the most recent G4 by User:Explicit?

  It is barely a month since the AfD consensus to delete, and there’s a history of re-creations in the meantime. I believe that the AfD consensus should be respected for at least 6 months, and that if you are not patient for that, then make a draft and submit through AfC to see if an AfC reviewer agrees with you. Alternatively, make a case on the draft talk page that the AfD reasons for deletion have been overcome (I note that Draft talk:Avataro Sentai Donbrothers is a redlink. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's nutty. We tell people they don't have to come to DRV for permission to recreate articles if they think they've overcome the reasons for deletion. Well, the reasons given for deletion were that the article was totally unreferenced (about half), nonsensical (the other half), and that the series didn't meet WP:NTV, which most such articles do when a series enters preproduction (about half, overlapping the first two categories). Well, it was referenced even during the AFD, the recreation that was G4'd was referenced, and now it's not only entered preproduction but actually premiered. And you say to come back in six months? Feh. —Cryptic 05:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  "We tell people they don't have to come to DRV for permission to recreate articles if they think they've overcome the reasons for deletion". Yes, if they are sure, and the AfD is old, but here the AfD is a month old, and the editor claimed to have overcome the reasons, but when asked for evidence they were evasive / non co-operative, I quite agree with Sandstein reading the editor as wasting their time.

  As a rule of thumb, I have long suggest that an AfD consensus should default to be respected for six months. If you want to challenge under six months, the onus is on you to present a case, not "there are new sources" (vague claim); "And these new sources are? Sandstein 05:55, 10 March 2022"; <non-answer>. But this is old; below User:Exukvera has given three sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Exukvera, when you say “We tried to put the draft content into the main article” that is also part of the problem because you provided no attribution to where you copied the material from. At least part of the point of the AfD was to allow the draft to cook further, as you put it. -2pou (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Can we get a temp undelete, please? Cryptic's comments suggest that it's needed. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• The new draft has additional sources. Maybe someone could review it before deciding the best course of action (Exukvera (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC))

  Your DRV nomination here is confusing and complicating things. I suggest doing nothing on the topic until this is resolved. I can't work out what you want, and guessing is likely to be counter-productive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  I want to move the draft to the main article without risk of being deleted despite having passed the guidelines. I talked with lots of people. Some say "try for DRV", other say "its a case of TNT and start again", others say "merge". (Exukvera (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC))

  Where’s the evidence that it passes what guideline?

  Who said “merge”, and to what? Please link to that discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  I see your discussion at User talk:Sandstein#Avataro Sentai Donbrothers. I agree with Sandstein. I see that he asked simple questions and you did not give direct answers. Read the advice at WP:THREE and answer at Draft talk:Avataro Sentai Donbrothers.

  I see that the draft has 14 references. I don’t want to review all 14. You say which are the best three for meeting the WP:GNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe this, this and this one. They are in japanese, but are from the official media, no promotional material, no fanbase sites and you can read without much difficulty with google translator. (Exukvera (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC))

  I will need time to review these.

  Is there a Japanese language Wikipedia article? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  ja:暴太郎戦隊ドンブラザーズ. —Cryptic 05:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Mainspace the draft. The three proffered sources look good. Sources in the draft look good, and clearly are much better that were in the page that was AfD-ed. The Japanese article looks good. The TV drama is now being broadcast (since March 6, 2022), which was not the case during the AfD. The reasons for deletion at the AfD are overcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  I second that. So far I've seen no questions about the quality of the current draft, but about the procedures regarding the past deletion and eventual reinstatement of the article instead. (Exukvera (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC))

• For the record, symbolic "Overturn the AfD" on the basis that AfD participants did not notice that the reasons for deletion were overcome during the discussion, by Exukvera on 9 February 2022‎. Advice User:Exukvera in future to mention in the AfD that they have just massively improved the article with good references. No one knew. I can't fault the closer, it's not usually expected that they check the history, and I can't fault the CSD#G4 tagger or deleter, because the improvements were made pre-deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Leave the deleted page deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  The improvement made on 9 Feb that is referred to is the second unattributed copy/paste move that happened in this history. This diff looks like a significant improvement until compared further back where it is a small tweak to the draft content: here. -2pou (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse AfD, allow recreation I remember seeing this AfD but did not comment on it. This was the article that was AfDed. It's clear when you compare the article at AfD and the current version that was G4'ed that they are significantly different. In addition the series has now aired when it had not yet aired during the course of the AfD. The AfD itself was not flawed, but the show is now notable as it has officially aired. Jumpytoo Talk 06:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  You should look more carefully. This is the page that was deleted at the end of the AfD. It is NOT what the participants were !voting on. There is a small process failure that has occurred here that might be fixable. Perhaps an indicator in the AfD about recent additions to the page being discussed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  In my eyes, the larger problem with the version deleted at AfD was that it basically blew away the attribution history of the draft, where other editors had done the majority of the work at first. The improvements made to the article since the nomination were copied from the draft with no attribution per WP:ATTREQ. You will see a history merge request in the history that basically got lost in the mix. Then continued improvements were made in main space. The current history looks like it has shuffled the draft and the copy/paste move together… I guess history attribution is now restored? Heh. -2pou (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)That's the version that was nominated, and yes, it was pretty poor. I might have nominated it too, if I didn't know how mindbogglingly huge Super Sentai is. (Srsly - if anyone isn't familiar with it, go read that article, and keep in mind that if anything it's understated - this is a multi-billion dollar franchise.) But for two and a half days - more than a third of the afd's duration - it looked like this (initial expansion) to this (final version at deletion). We don't normally ask afd closers to read sources or get involved with the content. But if they're already explicitly closing on strength of argument, as Sandstein did here, I expect at least a minimal sanity check that the arguments they're siding with are correct. "It has no references" would have taken all of ten seconds to disprove. Unless someone wants to argue that "The article is now nothing more than a den of vandalism" or "There's almost nothing left on the page" or "The subject matter will be notable enough for inclusion within a month" have ever been reason to delete an article? —Cryptic 07:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

    Strike “almost nothing left on the page” and I still stand by that delete !vote. The crux of that argument was not the content that was left, but for the unattributed copy paste move that happened twice. Copy/paste #1 And copy/paste #2 disguised as an initial expansion post AfD nom. -2pou (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

    Misattribution isn't a problem that calls for deletion, either. —Cryptic 21:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think we are missing the point here. The article was deleted under allegations of lack of sources, but was improved even before deletion. Now a new draft is ready which according to some reviewers, is in compliance with the WP:THREE rule. Is there any other issue left that can prevent the article from being undeleted? (Exukvera (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC))

  No, we're not missing that at all. I think we all get it. We're into the weeds of how best to bring the disputed content back into mainspace. There are competing versions that could be restored and challenges with how to give the creators proper credit after copy/paste moves. These are resolvable problems but they do need resolving because of our terms of use. In this case it looks to me as if it isn't needful to perform a history merge.—S Marshall T/C 03:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  There is not much difference between what was in the article before deleting and the current draft (further corrections can be done once the article is restored). In addition there will be two extra articles (an episode list and a list of characters) but both can only be created after the deletion issue is solved. (Exukvera (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC))

• The draft was already expanded to 28 sources and is way bigger than the article that was deleted. Can't we have a temporary undeletion until a consensus is reached? (Exukvera (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC))

14 March 2022

Lucia, California – Procedural closure. It turns out that there is nothing to do for DRV here. Sandstein 13:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lucia, California (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Regionally known place name was the residence of the Harlan, Evans, Gamboas, Lopez, and Dani families comparable in size and importance to Plaskett, California — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 06:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Endorse the AfD deletion 13 months ago, and note the re-creation nine months later. If someone wants it deleted again they can take it to AfD again. btphelps, what did you mean to ask? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC) I failed to notice the year of the deletion notice, assuming it was 2022. Nor was I aware that it was recreated. If acceptable, I will delete the February 11, 2021 deletion notice on the Talk page. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 06:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC) @Btphelps, no, the notice is a record of the previous deletion discussion and still relevant. Sandstein 13:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Question - Is there still an issue, or has the appellant concluded that everything is okay? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Do nothing. The deletion was correct, the recreation is correct, let's get on with our day. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Recent discussions

12 March 2022

Jorrit Faassen (closed)

Jorrit Faassen – WP:A7 speedy deletion overturned. Sandstein 20:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jorrit Faassen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Speedily deleted with the reason given as "Article about an eligible subject, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" which I do not believe was appropriate. The article indicated Faassen is significant because he is the son-in-law of Vladimir Putin, the husband of his eldest daughter Maria Vorontsova. I can see how someone might consider that inherited notability, however I believe Faassen meets notability guidelines. Most of the information that was in his article can be found in a prior revision of Vorontsova's article here, but there was other information in the article; I recall another editor adding a Dutch source. This should have been the subject of a deletion discussion but, instead, the article was speedily deleted. I am the page creator and I was not notified; I only found out after the fact and thus had no way to contest the deletion before it occurred. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Overturn A7. While notability is not inherited, under some circumstances significance can be inherited for purposes of A7. There are no firm rules here, but I agree with the statement at WP:CCSI#BIO that having "a strong association with a notable individual, such as a close relative or colleague", is often enough to clear the A7 bar. In this case, Faassen was clearly a "close relative" of the notable Maria Vorontsova, his wife, and he is related to Putin, who of course is one of the most notable people in the world. Under the circumstances, I think we can reasonably expect that there's some sort of RS coverage of Faassen, which makes A7 inapplicable. This probably belongs at AfD, where the NOTINHERITED argument as well as possible alternatives to deletion (e.g. a merge/redirect) can be considered, but Faassen meets the deliberately low claim-of-significance bar. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC) You know, this morning I was looking at Vladimir Putin's table and was astonished that there never was an article there. As for this article, I concur with Extraordinary Writ's explanation that while being related to a notable person isn't a claim of notability it certainly is a claim of significance and so say overturn A7 as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Overturn the A7 and allow to go to AFD. Speedy deletion should be non-controversial. If a speedy deletion results in controversy, AFD is usually the means for resolving the controversy. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC) While most of the refbombing is either namedrops and passing mentions on the one hand, or BIO1E material stemming from this incident on the other, ref 5 contains enough biographical information directly about this person (starting at the "Семья Фаассен" header) that an A7 is out of the question. Even if it wasn't, this title should still never have been deleted, as it's an extraordinarily obvious redirect candidate to his spouse. —Cryptic 17:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Speedy Overturn A7, send to AfD if desired, trout educate the deleting admin that this isn't even an edge case. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Speedy send to AfD. A reasonable contest of an A7 means someone wants a discussion at least, and AfD is where to have it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Overturn speedy. His position in the Putin family is clearly a credible claim of significance. Whether or not it would survive an AfD is another matter, but that's a higher standard. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC) I'm not seeing anything in the deleted article that makes a valid claim of significance, but it looks like this is going to AFD anyway. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC) If the A7 was valid, and the author protests to the deleting admin, I suggest the deleting admin should offer userfy or draftify. -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Can you clarify: Did the deleted article not say that he is Putin's son-in-law, or are you not seeing that as a credible claim of significance? Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC) The latter; notability is not inherited. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Good thing that the standard for A7 is WP:CCS, not notability, which is sort of what you said in your first comment, so I'm confused by your explanation which seems to say that notability is the expected standard to avoid A7, which is clearly not the case. Could you try explaining again, Stifle? Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC) I have nothing further to add to the above. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Overturn Easy come, easy go. The A7 speedy deletion has been contested so we restore the article and let it take its chances at AFD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Overturn. Would love the chance to review this from an AfD perspective... and possibly even improve it. Abeg92contribs 04:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 March 2022

Agra (2007 film) – Recreation in draftspace is allowed, because the currently proposed sources are considered a bit weak. The article can be restored to mainspace if additional sources are found. Sandstein 09:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Agra (2007 film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Closed on the basis of no sources. There is a full Sify review here and a review by National critic Malini Mannath who writes for The New Indian Express here. DareshMohan (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Sources provided are, at best, borderline. SiFi one carries no author. The other one seems a bit questionable. I'd say feel free to recreate with this, but if you do it will probably end up deleted. One solid source in addition to what you have would probably be enough. But right now, probably below the bar. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Allow Recreation either in article space, subject to AFD, or in draft space, subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Allow recreation Based on the contents of the AfD, the article had no sources and the participants didn't appear to find any during the discussion except for IMDB. I see no reason not to start fresh. That being said I'm in agreement with the above commenters that it'll probably need more sources added to avoid being nominated for deletion again in the future. NemesisAT (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Encourage draft. The proffered sources don't look good enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rachelle Bukuru – No consensus. Opinions are roughly split between endorse and overturn to "delete". This means we have no consensus to overturn the "no consensus" closure, which therefore remains in force. As DRV closer, I could relist the AfD, but frankly given the currently contested status of the NSPORTS guideline I'm not sure that this would result in a clearer consensus. It would probably be better to start a new deletion discussion once community consensus about the notibility criteria for sportspeople has become clearer. Sandstein 08:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rachelle Bukuru (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Full disclosure, I was the nominator. The article was closed as "no consensus", but I do not believe it was appropriately weighted for policy-based arguments on this discussion about a Burundian soccer player. The delete votes were all made on the basis of failing WP:GNG (see discussion, source checks were done, including specific ones to Burundian media, no SIGCOV found) while most of the keep votes were made on the basis of passing WP:NFOOTY, and few others citing WP:BIAS (an essay). While WP:FOOTY is an SNG, there are two problems with its use in this discussion. Firstly, this RfC for NSPORTS (of which NFOOTY is a part) was just done, and while it hasn't been implemented yet one of the things agreed upon was the requiring of the provision of at least one example of SIGCOV in deletion discussions for sports figures. This did not happen in this discussion. Secondly, and more importantly, even before this RfC there was/still is an explanatory note at the top of NSPORTS which reads: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability. So clearly failing GNG means that this article should be deleted, regardless of the old WP:FOOTY criteria. If you have any doubts, please read the deletion discussion for more information. Indy beetle (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC) I see now the article has been edited some since the original discussion. Unfortunately, all of the sources provided appear to be simple mentions of this player, not SIGCOV. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC) As the closer, I initially closed this AFD without comment because I didn't think it was a controversial decision. Opinion seemed evenly divided and the division seemed unresolvable. But now I can see that, with WP:NSPORTS being challenged and reviewed, every AFD on sports figures that hinges on notability is being hotly contested. I think that any decision, Keep, Delete or No consensus, would have left some participants unsatisfied. But if I overvalued the opinions that relied on WP:NSPORTS, that's a lesson that I should learn now, before a lot more articles on athletes get sent to AFD. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Someone should make a script to scrape the other DRVs on questionably notable sports figures we've held over the last two months or so, and then just pre-populate each DRV regular's opinion for us to review and approve. It would save time. Oh, and Endorse. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Giving the impression that you are blindly endorsing closes without review is not helpful. wjematherplease leave a message... 04:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Have you been around DRV much lately? Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Comment. No consensus seems reasonable based on numbers, but I'd be interested to know how the !votes were weighted given how weak the keep !votes were, only one of which addressed, but ultimately glossed over, the lack of sources. wjematherplease leave a message... 04:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Endorse, but allow speedy renom Nothing wrong with the close itself and acceptable closer discretion, and because the guidelines did change in the middle of the discussion I think it is fair to play it safe. However, because the guidelines did change in the middle of the AfD, allow a speedy renom to allow a new discussion under context of the new policies. Jumpytoo Talk 07:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC) We need to decide how we are going to deal with all the other decisions in progress during the rules change. As this is not my usual field, is it true thathe invariable result of the rules change would be an article being that would previous be considered notable now not being considered notable? Even if that would be the direction of change, it can;'t be assumemd for any one paticular person--at the time they did not have met the burden of clearly and directly meeting GNG, the contibutors might well not have searched fully for possible references; now that they do need to meet the burden, they would surely at least try to find them, and in some but not all case they might have succeeded. So we cannot reverse en masse, but would have to reevaluate each individual individual with a proper search according to WP:BEFORE. This is even more of a problem when we consider the hundreds of thousands of articles that were previously uncontroversial accepted, but would now need to show reliable souring for notability. Do we intend to grandfather these in, or systematically reinvestigate them--which would I think be a multi-year project; we would need to consider that for many areas there is an enormously greater availability of sources than there was 15 years ago--that they were not found in the original afd does not meet they would not be found now. There's an analogous problems with the field I do work in, organizations. Many corporations which met the rules 10 years ago might not do it today umder the current restrictions of NCORP; on the other hand there will be for many of them a wider availability of potential sources. (I am not currently going back and renominating them; i have quite enough work enough to do with the current submissions. And if we ever change the guidelines in an area to broaden coverage, we will have a even more difficult problem of equity. Furthermore, perhaps everything rejected for lack of sources should be reviewed every 5 or 10 years later in the hope of now being able to find sources. DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Comment. Please correct me if I am wrong: There has been no change of rules or policy. Very near the end of the AFD discussion, but before the close, an RFC was closed concerning the sports notability guidelines saying there was consensus for some changes. A guideline advocates a standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. The sports guidelines have maintained this status throughout the edit-warring over them. People may still take and express their opinions on the notability of individual topics and, in my view, should still have their good faith opinions taken into account fully. So, I endorse the AFD close. Thincat (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Which of the keep voters advocated for common sense or exceptions, as opposed to the guideline itself? Avilich (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Overturn to delete. When a sports biography is nominated for deletion, it gets listed at the relevant wikiproject which summons a bunch of "keep" voters who all make very similar arguments based on their preferred misreading of the rules. But the nose count ought not to matter, it should be the strength of the arguments. So looking past the brigading, at some point during the AfD, the keep side ought to have produced the significant coverage in reliable sources which they say exists. When they didn't, the outcome should have been delete.—S Marshall T/C 09:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC) You do realize that your opening (and presumably strongest argument) is an ad hominem argument, right? That that same critique, if both correct and applied fairly, would require us to dismantle DELSORT? Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Would you mind reading everything I wrote rather than just the first sentence? I am of the view that selectively notifying a group that tends strongly to an extreme outlier view and includes football-focused spas is problematic, but then I go on to say some other things as well.—S Marshall T/C 00:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC) I did, in fact, read it, but only commented on the part that I believed impaired the rest of your argument: the notion that those with a more expansive view of inclusion criteria are somehow suspect or impugning the 'purity' of the encyclopedia--not your words, obviously--is a pernicious cancer on AGF, a divisive us v. them mentality that poisons discourse. By opening with that canard, you gave the very clear impression (to me, obviously) that everything else that came afterwards is just pretextual wikilawyering in support of the desired outcome. Words matter, arguments matter, order matters. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC) I don't see where I wrote anything about the purity of the encyclopaedia or described anyone as a pernicious cancer. What I said was that selective notification about a discussion, when the notification goes to a group of users who tend to have similar and outlying opinions, is problematic.—S Marshall T/C 19:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC) See below for this to play out in action. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Endorse Liz made the right call that there is no consensus here. Per WP:N, A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right, suggesting that passing an SNG is just as valid of an argument as passing GNG. Per WP:NSPORTS, The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. The "or" here is consistent with WP:N that NSPORTS is an alternative to GNG for presumed notablity. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines). This again suggests the guideline may be used as an alternative to GNG. The contents of NFOOTY is under active discussion and any deletions should hold off until the dust has settled, as the closure of the review of NSPORTS is currently at WP:AN. NemesisAT (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC) I'm not sure why you insist on repeating this fallacy, other than a stubborn refusal to accept community consensus. Successive RFCs (in 2017, and more recently at N and VP) and countless other discussions have reaffirmed community consensus that NSPORT is absolutely not an alternative to GNG (the VP RFC even included an explicit proposal to this end; it was rejected); this is also crystal clear in the wording of NSPORT, and it's FAQs, when not cherry-picked as you are doing. GNG must be met (eventually), which generally includes when the presumption is challenged at AFD. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC) "Cherry picked" works both ways. If community consensus is so strong, the guidelines should have been updated to reflect that. I'm currently following what it says in the guidelines. If the 2017 RFC is the one I'm thinking of, the close was questionable as I don't remember seeing a clear consensus when I read it over. NemesisAT (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC) You also do not get to ignore community consensus simply because you don't agree with it. Incidentally, "clear consensus" happens to be the exact phrase used in the 2017 RFC close. wjematherplease leave a message... Overturn to delete. Despicable closure. The weight of the keep arguments were over-represented when most of them amounted to nothing more than mere WP:VAGUEWAVES, while the delete !votes had thorough arguments backed by actual practice. WP:BIAS is a valid critique of Wikipedia's coverage of topics outside of the western hemisphere and the community's shortcomings in that regard, but not a rationale to retain an article that does not satisfy notability guidelines. Indy beetle summary hit the nail on the head. Even the relisting user who is not an admin got it right. The AFD nomination statement was never adequately addressed and this was an easy "delete". ✗plicit 12:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Whoa, steady on. I think this close should be overturned to delete too, but "despicable" is a bit strong.—S Marshall T/C 12:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC) endorse and allow speedy renom Close was reasonable, but given all the banging about with changes etc. I think we can allow a renom. I'd say let's wait 2 weeks or so for the SNG issues to settle a bit and then send it back. Hopefully by then we'll be in a better place. Hobit (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Relist. The issues regarding changes to NFOOTBALL emerged only at the very end of the discussion, and there was not adequate time for !voters to address them. It's generally not a good idea to close an AfD (particularly one that's only been relisted once) when productive discussion is continuing and new arguments have been recently raised. I might support an "endorse and allow speedy renomination" outcome if the NFOOTBALL changes had occurred after the discussion had been closed, but since the arguments were presented in the AfD I think it's fair to allow them to be considered at greater length. (Oh, by the way: Caphadouk, who !voted keep, has just been blocked as a sockpuppet, so that !vote should be given no weight.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 22:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Oh for God's sake.—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Are projects normally informed of deletion reviews? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Why are we whispering? Seriously though, no they aren't, but only because there are so few DRVs that deletion sorting doesn't really make sense. Hobit (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Endorse - whatever you think about NFOOTBALL, the consensus was clear. Do not allow to be re-nominated for 6 months, otherwise it's POINTy. GiantSnowman 22:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC) "The consensus was clear"....you do realize this was closed as "no consensus"? The only thing that was clear to me is that none of the keepers provided any sources in the discussion. Seems rather unfair to automatically classify a possible decision in a 6-month future timeframe as POINTy, especially when the community consensus as per that RfC is that in future AfD discussions all sports articles should be supported by at least one piece of SIGCOV. How would an AfD to see if the article complies be POINTy? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC) the closer gives the result is no consensus,not keep Hhkohh (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Endorse as the right conclusion after an inconclusive AFD. Sometimes an appellant makes a good-faith appeal that really a complaint that the closer should have supervoted based on the appellant's interpretation of strength of argument. This is such an appeal, a good-faith opinion that the closer should have downgraded half of the opinions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC) In my opinion, sports notability should be an alternative to general notability, but the real issue here is whether an inconclusive AFD should be closed as No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC) You say "supervote" as if closers do not regularly disregard the weaker arguments in favor of the stronger, policy-based ones. Though I concede "weaker" and "stronger" are in the eye of the beholder. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Overturn or relist The qualitative gap between the arguments is as high as it can be, with the nominator's source analyses on one side vs. vaguewaves on the other. NSPORT itself, even the pre-RfC version, requires some amount of non-trivial sourcing to confer notability. Whether that requirement matches GNG doesn't matter here, as the keep voters didn't discuss the sources at all, so the case for notability is an empty one in whichever standard one applies. The closer's excuse that she doesn't know whether to choose between NSPORT and GNG is clearly nonsense, as NSPORT itself leaves no doubt that 'keep per NFOOTY' is not a valid argument in an AfD. Avilich (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Relist or renominate- unusual case in which the relevant guidelines were being modified while the discussion was ongoing. There should be no barrier to a speedy re-examination of this article. Reyk YO! 21:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Endorse Already relisted once. Hard to see how that delete would be a possible consensus outcome - there'd be a better case that keep has more consensus, as they do support their positions with current policy, rather than Crystal Balling future policy. If NFootball is removed in the future, then another AFD seems fine. Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Comment. Whether the rules change applies to her is actually irrelevant, as the subject did not meet notability standards before, either. She met criteria for a presumption of GNG notability, and if an editor had identified a specific, hard-to-access Burundian news source that would be very likely to contain SIGCOV of her there would be more reasonable cause to delay deletion. However, the keep !votes were exclusively on the basis of either WP:BIAS (which is not a guideline or policy) or "meets NFOOTY and has ongoing career" (which is not sufficient in the absence of even a hint of GNG sourcing). There is plenty of precedent to support deletion of GNG-failing NFOOTY-meeting subjects with ongoing careers, e.g. Edvin Dahlqvist, Wei Changsheng (where the close summary included Despite appeals that this article should be kept on the grounds that he apparently has an ongoing career, this request is not grounded in any guideline), Erik Gunnarsson (close: The keep votes centre entirely around NFOOTY which is a presumption of GNG. Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS my assessment of the arguments is that those claiming the subject fails gng carry more weight as not a single source which might indicate the significant coverage NFOOTBALL assumes has been presented. (emphasis mine)), Brad House (close: Keep arguments based on WP:NFOOTY do not overcome the Delete arguments based on WP:GNG.), Abdellatif Aboukoura, etc. JoelleJay (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC) I explained in my statement how the subject's lack of coverage in RS failed the guidance offered in NSPORTS (which directed one to GNG) before the RfC was ever done. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Overturn, (involved) per the lack of policy based keep justifications. A few of the keep !voters did mention NFOOTY, but that argument stopped applying prior to the close of the AFD, and even before then it was a weak argument. Note that one of the keep !voters has now been banned as a sockpuppet. BilledMammal (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Overturn to delete or, second choice, renominate. Keep rationales were not founded in policy and no significant coverage in reliable sources was demonstrated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Endorse. There was no consensus to delete. "No consensus" was the correct close. Do not overturn from DRV, DRV is not AfD2. Instead, follow the advice at WP:RENOM. Make the new nomination better. It is not good enough to be right, you need to have a consensus agree with you. NSPORTS is in flux, now is not the time for knee jerk intervention from a review process. Do not allow an immediate re-nomination, a better nomination takes time to compose. I suggest a thorough source analysis, which was not done in the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC) At the time the article was nominated, there was a single database source. No one was challenging the failure of GNG. A source review was not necessary at the time. None of the keep votes suggested sources which needed to be reviewed. Those keepers that did discuss sources were mostly trying to argue that it did not matter that sources did not exist. That would probably be necessary in a new AfD, since sources (none of which qualify as SIGCOV in my view) have since been added. Also I find your rationale disappointing, since the implications of it suggest that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can essentially ignore policy and guidelines, particularly in doing things that the guidelines explicitly advise against. This attitude is allowing the sports projects to behave as a sovereign citizen movement, subject to the rules only as they see them, not as the rest of the community sees them. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Hi User:Indy beetle. A single database source explains the start of the AfD and the lack of direct discussion of the best sources. Failure of GNG refers to sources that exist, not sources in the article. Unfortunately, for people arguing deletion, the addition of sources during the discussion makes it very hard for later participants to see a coherent compelling argument for deletion. My rationale here is not based on LOCALCONSENSUS nor inclusionism, but on how AfD works, and doesn't work, and it doesn't work well to rush a deletion argument while the sources in the article are changing. NSPORTS is in flux, and is ripe to fall. I am not here to defend NSPORTS. Today there are seven references. 1. Database, subject merely listed, no prose, not GNG compliant 2. Subject not there, subject is not "Joëlle Bukuru". Not GNG compliant. 3. Subject merely listed, not GNG compliant. 4. Subject merely listed, not GNG compliant. 5. Subject merely listed, not GNG compliant. 6. Subject merely listed, not GNG compliant. 7. Subject not even named. OK. I see your point. Overturn to Delete. My sympathies to Liz, it looked like no consensus, but after reviewing the sources, the "keep" !votes were !voting on no substance. -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC) To note, I am aware that GNG applies to all existing source material and not what is merely in an article at a given time, and I did do a WP:BEFORE including Burundian sources (as discussed in the AfD), and came up with nothing better than single mentions such as those above. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC) WP:NFOOTBALL as an SNG is an indicator that the GNG will be met, and the article kept if nominated at AfD. SNGs do not force the AfD decision. There is no coverage beyond a name mention in any source, and so there is no basis for an article, much as the "delete" !voters were all saying. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC) "Do not overturn from DRV, DRV is not AfD2". 15 minutes later: "There is no coverage beyond a name mention in any source, and so there is no basis for an article". Hmm. Avilich (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Yes, User:Avilich, astounding. I was astounded at how useless every added source is. I don't know that closers are expected to look at the sources added during an AfD, but if they did they would have immediately seen the shallowness of the "keep" !voters, and how the "delete" !votes were speaking directly to the lack of coverage. Whoever added references 2 and 7 should be warned for disruption, adding non-sources in an attempt to show that they are adding sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Ref 2 mentions the subject, but does not appear to support the claim the citation is attached to in the article. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC) You're right, Rachelle is in the list. Still a useless source. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Sorry, but I was drawing attention to your frequently saying things like "good close", "follow advice at WP:RENOM", and "DRV is not AfD2" as a sort of knee-jerk reaction seemingly without considering the actual merits of the close aside from the raw headcount. This is inconsistent with you then analyzing the sources as if this were precisely an "AfD2". In this case, you didn't need to look at the actual sourcing: just a look at NSPORT itself makes it clear why the "keep per NFOOTY" votes are worth less. Avilich (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC) On this occasion I was surprised. I did read through the AfD, and did read the article, and did look at the source urls noting some at least looked good but without actually reading them. When I later read the sources, it completely recoloured the AfD discussion. Normally I avoid NSPORTS. I am completely unaccustomed to seeing five database entry sources, and two sources that don’t mention the subject, as the entirety of the sourcing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC) On my first pass, before your first reply to me, I had failed to look and see the state of the article at nomination, and was critical of there not being a thorough source analysis. More of the same sources and worse being thrown in during the discussion explains your nomination, and so I seriously reconsidered. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC) I appreciate you taking the time to examine the merits of the AfD. I've been here since January 2016 and this is only the third time I've ever participated in deletion review, and the first time I've ever opened a discussion here to overturn a keep vote. I like to think that, considering the merits (or rather, lack thereof) of the subject that I'm not crazy. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Endorse. Despite lots of yelling by a minority, the community has not deprecated NFOOTY/NSPORTS, and meeting it, or GNG, is acceptable to have an article. As such, the closer did not have jurisdiction to disregard keep !votes as the requester and others would have wished her to do, and no-consensus was within the reasonable range of possible closures. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC) @Stifle: Can you then explain why there was from before the big sports RfC and still is an explanatory note there at the top of NSPORTS which explains that this very notion is incorrect as far as NSPORTS go, that meeting the SNG is only meant to prevent quick deletion, and that GNG is the more general standard? I explained this all in my original post, I do not understand why no one is reading it or cares to address that. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Which "big sports RFC" do you have in mind? Stifle (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC) The one I linked in my first post to this thread. It did not change the guidance at the top of NSPORTS which suggested deference to GNG after an article’s notability has been challenged and attempts to find SIGCOV have been made. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC) That's not what the RFC said or decided. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC) You appear to be responding to a point that has not been made. As to your original post, while generally accurate in your supposition that "the closer did not have jurisdiction to disregard keep !votes" (emphasis mine), no-one is suggesting this; the argument that has been put forward is that !votes were not properly weighted with respect to policies and guidelines because the keep arguments were extremely weak in this regard (ATAs abound with many vague waves, citing an essay and crystal balling vs. lack of sources and a strong rebuttal of the usual "local sources must exist" fallacy), and the closer absolutely does have authority to do this. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Bolding for clarity: What I am saying is that the RfC did not change the part of NSPORTS which suggests deference to GNG when a specific subject's notability is challenged. So it is not an "or" situation. Also re Wjemather, to be fair to Stifle I did use the word "disregard" above which probably wasn't the best choice, as I meant as you explain it: different weighting of !votes, not necessarily dumping them out entirely (except for that sockpuppet vote, of course). -Indy beetle (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Deprecated or not, NSPORT says "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources" and "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources ... is not sufficient to establish notability". No such sourcing was evidenced in the AfD, so it's a lie to say that the closure was a choice between favoring NSPORT, GNG, or neither, because none of the two were met. Avilich (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 March 2022

Jessica Foschi – No consensus, relisted. Opinions are divided, which illustrates that this was probably not a good AfD for a non-admin to close. As is possible in a no consensus DRV, and also per WP:NACD/WP:BADNAC, which allow the reopening of non-admin closures by admins, I'm relisting the AfD to try to get to a clearer consensus. Sandstein 09:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jessica Foschi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This was closed as "keep", and I invite you to consider whether that was an accurate reflection of the consensus. —S Marshall T/C 13:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Overturn to Relist I could conceivably see this relisted to see if there was additional thoughts about the 1E question, largely because one editor did not express a bolded comment. And this was not a clear case for a non-admin closure since the discussion had four people supporting keeping the article and three people suggesting deletion. This feels more controversial than looking at bolded comments alone. That said, I don't see how the discussion will turn out differently with a relist. --Enos733 (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Endorse as a good keep and a good NAC. One PERNOM support in the face of a preponderance of reasoned, policy-based disagreement doesn't need a relist. The original argument wasn't inherently bad or unreasonable... it just failed to garner any reasonably articulate support, despite the back and forth. Relisting would be improper, as consensus from that discussion was clear. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Further, the nom admits during the discussion that it would be reasonable to cover this person in another article. A keep outcome is not a barrier to a rename or merge discussion, just the community declining to mandate any such outcome. It would be reasonable to start such a proposal to refocus the article, and I am not opposed to the PEREN idea of reinaugurating AfD as Articles for Discussion... but on the question of keep vs. delete, the keep outcome prevailed. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC) No I didn't. I said it would be reasonable to cover the event, which is not the same thing. Ms Foschi is now an attorney at Price Waterhouse Cooper and the author of this rather useful scholarly article on doping in sport, but we Wikipedians have wronged her by permanently associating her name with the occasion when she was internationally banned from swimming at the age of 15, and we shouldn't do that. Is the problem here that Uncle G didn't preface his contribution to the debate with a word in bold?—S Marshall T/C 18:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC) I'm mystified, honestly. Yes, this was initially negative coverage that got ongoing press, and now post-vindication has given her purpose in life making sure that no one else is ever wronged like she was. We should now memory hole it because it was a bad thing that happened to a minor a couple of decades ago who is now an attorney? Wikipedia did not exist when this happened. We are not feeding a meme or news cycle, but recording a past event in a way that, per my reading, seems pretty favorable to the subject, and likely a ton more charitable than the contemporary press was, given our hindsight. So why not include the article you found as a "the rest of the story" bit to cap off the biography, rather than seeking to delete it? And yes, Uncle G participated in the discussion but apparently chose to remain uncounted; I do it on a regular basis when I see an issue worth comment but don't have a strong opinion on the right outcome. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Where has she got ongoing press, though? The "keep" side made this claim several times but the thing is: they lied, and they were called out on this lie during the debate. Jessica Foschi has not been the subject of any ongoing coverage at all. We have no source for any biographical information about her whatsoever. And I very much join issue with you on this idea that the lack of a word in bold means you don't have a strong opinion. Closers are asked to evaluate the strength of the arguments, not count the words in bold. If your argument is a killer then that ought to be apparent from what you write, and no closer should allow words in bold to cloud their evaluation of that argument. I put it to you that Uncle G's view is neither ambivalent nor weakly expressed. It's as plain as day to anyone who reads it, and his takedown of the keep side's lies is both incisive and final.—S Marshall T/C 04:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Perhaps I misspoke--the Scholar search has more ongoing coverage than News, hence 'ongoing coverage' may be better characterized as academic legal discussion rather than news. A quick look through the history shows that most of the uncited bibliographic information was added by the article creator, Johnskrb2, who has a low but nonexistent level of Wikipedia activity; it's possible that editor had access to sources that are no longer visible. Regardless, if NSWIM existed, would Ms. Foschi meet it? Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Oh, doubtless she would: none of our sports notability guidelines are sane. Fortunately we don't have to wrestle with such a guideline in this case. The "academic legal discussion" to which you refer is all about her doping case, so it's a black letter case of BLP1E (specifically its first limb). Of course you personally wrote WP:WIALPI so you're well qualified to make your own assessment of whether she's a low-profile individual.—S Marshall T/C 11:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Thanks for the credit; it's genuinely appreciated. Yes, the various press doesn't make her a high profile individual--Getting listed on PWC's website once, writing a cited academic paper in law school, alumni awards... relatively routine ongoing coverage, really, not tied to the 1E in question. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC) This is ongoing press, and it was mentioned and added to the article by DaffodilOcean [4] during the deletion discussion: Baumbach, Jim (2007-06-10). "Beyond the FIGHT: Ten years after being exonerated from a positive test for steroids, Jessica Foschi has graduated from law school". Newsday (Nassau Edition). p. 70. Retrieved 2022-03-03. Beccaynr (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC) DaffodilOcean also added: Nafziger, James A. R. (2002). "Dispute Resolution in the Arena of International Sports Competition". The American Journal of Comparative Law. 50: 161–179. doi:10.2307/840875. ISSN 0002-919X. during the AfD [5], and this source, in a subsection titled "The Foschi Case" describes the case as "celebrated" (at 162) and then focuses on Foschi, her swimming career, her actions within the proceedings, as well as the procedural history, with analysis about the significance of the case (at 162-164). From my view, if we relist, this type of source could be more clearly articulated both as support for WP:GNG and against deletion per WP:BLP1E. Beccaynr (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC) DaffodilOcean also added: Hahn, Alan (28 March 1999). "Water Under the Bridge". Newsday (Suffolk Edition). p. 114. Retrieved 2022-03-03. [6], which is an in-depth profile of Foschi that includes biographical, career, and education information in addition to looking back at what the article describes as a "19-month ordeal". Beccaynr (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC) DaffodilOcean also added: Rosen, Daniel M. (2008-06-30). Dope: A History of Performance Enhancement in Sports from the Nineteenth Century to Today. ABC-Clio. pp. 91–93. ISBN 978-0-313-34521-0. [7], which discusses "the story of Jessica Foschi's ordeal", the impact on the sport, and adds context (at 91-93). Beccaynr (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC) DaffodilOcean also added this textbook: Weiler, Paul C. (2015). Sports and the law : text, cases, problems. Internet Archive. St. Paul, MN : West Academic Publishing. p. 1141. ISBN 978-1-62810-161-4. [8], which discusses what it describes as an "incident" that "put an intriguing twist on the role of national tribunals in overseeing the rules and decisions of international sports federations." (at 1182) It then discusses the procedural history (1182-1183) before describing her law review note on the general issues, not her own experience, as "impressive". There is additional context for her case at 1199. Beccaynr (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Beccaynr, let's take each one of those sources in turn. This one is fundamentally about the doping accusation. It does tell us a few details about what Ms Foschi has done since but it's all very much low-profile-individual stuff: graduating from law school, taking her bar exam, publishing her one and only scholarly article, unsuccessfully trying out for the Olympics in 1996, 2000 and 2004. It also gives us quite a few details about how the authorities have got better at dealing with doping accusations since and it quotes Ms Foschi about doping. I cannot see any evidence that there has been any other significant incident or event so I can't see how it qualifies as "ongoing coverage". This one is about sports law. It discusses the one case for which Ms Foschi is noted. To call this "ongoing coverage" is simply false. This one is still fundamentally about the doping accusation. It gives other details of her life but it's all very much low-profile-individual stuff: college freshman, at that time; spent the past weekend at home; doing some competitive swimming, but, and I quote: "The championships, hosted by US Swimming, are more of an excuse to extend her spring break, Foschi admitted." It then says she was one of three people from her club to make the national junior swimming team, came second in the 800 metres in some national swimming trials, and then the doping allegations followed by how she's recovering from them now. I cannot see any evidence that there's been any other significant incident or event so I can't see how it qualifies as "ongoing coverage". This one is purely about the case and I put it to you that anyone who says it's about Foschi or her swimming career is misrepresenting it -- recklessly or wilfully. This one is paywalled and not in my library but it's a sports law text. I do not believe for one moment that it contains useful biographical information about Jessica Foschi. Finally, I want to say that now we've pinged every single user who !voted keep to summon them to this DRV, this is no longer in any meaningful sense a disinterested review of what happened.—S Marshall T/C 00:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC) I ctrl-F'd Oaktree b and Cranloa12n, who both !voted keep, and did not find them pinged in this discussion (until now), and it seems appropriate to ping KidAd, who also participated, as well as Uncle G, who both participated in the AfD and is discussed here. I have not taken a position on this deletion review, and my interest is in contributing to the discussion, where you characterize me and others as liars. However, based on your clarifying comments, it appears we have a good faith policy and source dispute, one that I think can be addressed by reviewing the sources, including those that chronicle her swimming career as it continued during the various proceedings related to the doping allegations, as well as afterwards. From my view, "ongoing coverage" includes sources that are published after the initial burst of news related to the event, including as discussed in WP:BLP1E, which is why I specifically used the word "persistent" in my AfD comment, because that refers to the significance of the event, i.e. The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. There were a complex, heavily-covered set of cases that appear to be significant both for the sports world and sports law, based on sources that found it worthy of in-depth analysis and discussion years later. Foschi was also found to be worthy of notice afterwards, in sources that provide biographical coverage, continued to cover her swimming career, and a textbook that finds her law review "impressive." Our subjective opinion about what is useful biographical information does not appear relevant to how these sources allow us to develop an standalone article about her, her swimming career, the significant proceedings related to the doping allegations and her substantial and well-documented role, and what she did afterwards, including Olympic trials, law school, and becoming an attorney. All of this, including the source descibing it as her ordeal, is about what she did - it is part of her biography. The continued insistence that there is 'reckless or willful' misrepresentation happening seems unnecessary and unhelpful for a discussion about content. Beccaynr (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Relist' With aout any assumptiotions of how the discussion would go, it would be fairer to relist. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Relist per DGG. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Endorse - the close is a reasonable judge of consensus. On one hand I can see the relist argument - on the other hand, there'd been 6 days without barely a comment when it was closed. Nfitz (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Endorse Really nothing wrong with the closure. The keep !votes explained that the person meets SIGCOV. So they're good enough. A relist is pointless IMV since the consensus is clear. SBKSPP (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Not all AfDs are about notability. In this case the basis of the nomination was WP:BLP1E. Where in the discussion was that disproven or refuted?—S Marshall T/C 08:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC) It was refuted by the very last person to "vote" - who was User:Beccaynr, on March 4. No one challenged that in the next 6.5 days - not even yourself, who did in that time comment to someone else about peer-reviewed sources. Nfitz (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC) I would certainly be accused of bludgeoning if I responded to everything I objected to; it was needful to let some things slip.—S Marshall T/C 23:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC) From my view, it is less appropriate to then refer to me as a liar only in this discussion, including without adding a notice to the article per the DR instructions so I could have an opportunity to respond. I have tried in my comments above to respond to the concerns you now raise, based on sources that were in the article during the AfD. Beccaynr (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC) The keep !votes disprove BLP1E by proving that the person definitely meets SIGCOV. So I'll still endorse the closure. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC) That doesn't have anything to do with policy. When all the sources are about one event and the person's otherwise low-profile we shouldn't have an article. And this was explained in detail during the AfD.—S Marshall T/C 09:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Overturn or relist Counting the unbolded case for not keeping, I don't see a consensus here that BLP1E was not applicable, which the keep close implies, and there were several concerns about the nature of the keep arguments in general, including that its proponents weren't diligent enough or even that they "lied". The latter is a serious charge; the discussion should be relisted so these objections can be properly addressed, or closed as no consensus since they weren't. Avilich (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC) A discussion may be in order with a view to merging, redirecting, or refocusing the article, but there wasn't anywhere near a consensus to delete. Probably not a great case study of a non-admin close, and the closer should possibly be reminded that contentious cases should be left to administrators. But caveats aside, endorse. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC) I was originally at endorse, but I think relist is probably ideal. The ongoing coverage appears to really be just this: [9] and her own work. If that's true, this probably is a BLP1E thing and the article should be an event article, not a BLP. If there is more ongoing coverage, it should be added to the article. It may well be some of it is just behind paywalls (which I could get past if I were at work). But I think further discussion is worthwhile. If this is relisted, then relisting should ask for further discussion specifically about BLP1E and ongoing coverage. Hobit (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Endorse to Keep my Keep vote. Nothing has changed, despite the loud and rather extensive protests of a few voters here. She's notable for all reasons cited previously. It's great that she's turned her life around, but her past is her past, I don't see the issue with presenting it in a scholarly context, no matter how shameful it might be; to be blunt, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. If that's one of the reasons that helps your notability here, so be it. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC) And of course she didn't do the "crime", as you'd know if you read the sources before !voting. She has always been entirely innocent of wrongdoing.—S Marshall T/C 14:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Comment I don't care anymore. This has gotten silly. The article is notable. She was involved in "something", we documented it. If you don't like it, can we please move on? Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC) No. I've said before in this discussion that this is not about notability. There are many, many sources about the one and only notable event in Ms Foschi's life. But, notability is not the only guideline we have to think about at AfD. As I've said before in this discussion we also have to consider WP:BLP and specifically WP:BLP1E. The whole point of BLP1E is to protect totally innocent, low-profile individuals such as Ms Foschi from situations like this, where someone like you skim-reads the content and concludes that she's done something wrong.—S Marshall T/C 16:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Comment At this point, she (the individual) is notable, and the event is also notable based on the coverage it received. I don't see why we can't have both in the article. If you want to use this as a sort of case study on what went wrong in her life, please create said article. Otherwise, I'm ok with things as they are now. She's notable for what happened due to, during, and after the said doping incident alone, the rest is gravy. Whether she likes the attention or not, so long as we present it using NPOV and make sure all sources are vetted, that's the very point of an encyclopedia. We present the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions. I understand you're passionate about this, but I believe it's a moot point. She's notable and we have to present ALL facets of her life, otherwise what's the point. If you're worried about "low profile" individuals suffering as you put it, please beef up the article to include the facts as to why she hasn't "done something wrong". It's not what she did or didn't do, it's how we present it to the public. A swimmer getting banned, then the ensuing discussion about it with multiple sources is entirely the point. If you want to avoid that someone skim reads it, please update the article accordingly. I'm of no opinion on what she did/didn't do, I'm judging if this is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, it is, based on presenting a balanced argument for both sides of what happened. This is what we've done. If she doesn't like it, frankly, that's something we can't do anything about. We're being as neutral as we can on the event. Otherwise, censorship creeps in and restricts the flow of information. That goes against the principal of wikipedia. The three pages of discussions on the subject are longer than the article in question. Quickly turning into WP:SNOW. Article has been kept, now we're arguing over what amounts to piddly, bureaucratic issues at this point. "The clause should be seen as a polite request not to waste everyone's time.". So, please, stop. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Comment Can we please close the discussion about the discussion to delete? The original point of this exercise was to decide if the article should be kept. It has. This is more about policy than the article at this point. Open a discussion at the signpost/write an article there about it WP:SIGNPOST. I think we're done here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC) @Oaktree b That's right. This DRV is pointless IMV. There's really nothing wrong with the closure. The nom's accusations are pure IDONTLIKEIT. SBKSPP (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC) I think the key question that wasn't addressed clearly is if this falls under WP:BLP1E and should be made into an article about the event rather than a BLP. The discussion, IMO, didn't do a great job addressing that issue, so a relist seems reasonable. Hobit (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 March 2022

Karma's World – Socks requesting copyvios back? Hard no. (non-admin closure) Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Karma's World (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) File:Karma's World.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I humbly request that this file and its associated article be restored/undeleted as they may/might be recreated in the future months by someone else (which would be an NFC/NFCC violation and CSD candidates). There is one revision the deleting admin hasn't seen thoroughly for me: the revision of this user (Polygork) which displays/displayed the minimum requirement for an article inclusion here in/on/at WP. Ahnmine (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Endorse deletion A quick look at the history means this request is a hard no. We can't restore articles with major copyright problems. SportingFlyer T·C 10:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Sorry, we can't restore copyright violations. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Comment. This was a copyright violation – I actually temporarily undeleted it to double-check, at the request of Polygork (that was before I learned that that user was a sockpuppet). Please see here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Ahnmine is confirmed as a sock of Polygork. My suggestion is to WP:G5 this discussion, but I'll leave that to the DRV regulars. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 March 2022

Rajen Sharma – Consensus here is to allow restoration to draft or user space. I'm not undeleting the article myself, but any admin is free to do so on the basis of this discussion. Sandstein 09:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rajen Sharma (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Wish to have a userify/draftification of this page to consider working on it. To be very clear there is no challenge to the result of the XfD but I wish to examine this biography in more detail. I wish to minimize drama sufficient to get draft restored, and I do have drama capability if necessary. Return to mainspace pretty obviously would have to be via AfC/DRV if developed to that extent that is reasonable. Did request at closer's page but we have past history and I apologise for not reading the blurb at the top of their talk page ... the blue on pink is just about clear enough to read but I am colour defective and my vision certainly took to avoiding reading it. Its also been rejected WP:REFUND (Special:Diff/1075813457). I am (unusually) neither contacting the closer not the refund refuser and both have previously essentially asked me or had on their talk page they wish to minimize contact (Actually I don't think I have to for a refund) ... if someone else feels that is necessary please feel free to do so. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC) allow move to draft/user space as a reasonable request from a long-term editor. But as you've said, use DRV (maybe AfC) to get consensus before moving to mainspace. I think formal agreement to that would be a reasonable precondition of the move to draft/personal space. Hobit (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Happy with Hobit's suggestion: Can refer to this DRV discussion in the {{Old AfD multi}} on the talk page. An AfC comment might be used to indicate AfC boilerplating must not be removed from the draft and re-introduction should be via AfC or DRV. May even be the case of a sticky talk page comment. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Allow userification on the merits as this is a delete voter, but be careful with this one, as I'm sure you will be, due to the socking/UPE in the previous article and the recommendations to salt. I don't want to put any conditions on userification, but I would expect any drama to be minimised as promised. SportingFlyer T·C 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC) It might be better to rewrite this from scratch? As according to the AfD nearly all the content is from UPE or socks. If there are sources that were not discussed in the AfD then refunding sources only might be a better option. Jumpytoo Talk 08:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC) @Jumpytoo: Are you volunteering? If so great. Otherwise I can get good analytics from the history which helps me manage things as necessary. Otherwise this suggestion simply leads me towards extra work. If I wanted to re-write from scratch I would not have come here, but if I were to be refused a refund that is what I would prefer to do as it means I do not have to agree to restrictions on such a re-incarnation so would involve me in less work. Sources only refused. To state the obvious most are in the XfD anyway (plus cache cloud snapped) so the offer is somewhat perhaps not so obviously pointless. With respect thankyou but no thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Comment - Notifying the salting admin User:Black Kite, and User:Rosguill whose recommendation resulted in the salting. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Allow Userfication as per above discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Downgrade Protection to ECP so that an AFC reviewer can review and accept, rather than having to review and request a technical move. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Draftify. The deletion was driven by notability concerns, and notability is not required in draftspace, so this should have been an easy REFUND request. User:Liz's (20:40, 7 March 2022) hesitancy at REFUND does not have my support. The WP:SALTing of the mainspace title was for repeated creations, and this is not a reason for deletion from draftspace, but for creation in draftspace, barring non-notability reasons for deletion. I am not immediately seeing other WP:DEL or WP:NOT reasons for deletion, so I think it is fine for draftspace. NB that the AfD deletion is prejudicial, and unilateral re-creation is not OK. The evidence of overcoming the reasons for deletion needs to be presented. Require AfC acceptance before allowing back to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC) The article was deleted through an AFD and the page was fully protected. WP:REFUND is for uncontroversial deletions. Restoring an article deleted through an AFD and ignoring that the page was fully protected would not have been uncontroversial. In fact, I've never seen that done at WP:REFUND in the time I've been helping out there. I asked the editor to request that protection be lowered and we could reconsider the request. I wasn't going to ignore the full protection of the page and Djm-leighpark chose to come here rather than ask Black Kite to lower the page protection so here we are. There are other admins who patrol REFUND and if any of them disagreed with my response, they could have chosen to restore the page. Honoring a restoration request that another admin refuses happens when admins disagree at REFUND but not in this instance so I was not the only admin who didn't take action on this request. If this deletion review okays Draftification, that is fine, but it's an action that has to occur through this review, not through REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Martin Süskind – No consensus, article remains deleted pending a copyvio check. People here mostly agree that the article did not meet the criteria for a WP:G5 speedy deletion, but disagree about whether it should be undeleted or whether it should remain deleted for other reasons including copyright concerns. As per the instructions, a no consensus outcome in a DRV about a speedy deletion would normally mean that the article is undeleted. But in this case, my impression of this discussion is that there is a rough consensus that the article should not be undeleted before it has been checked for copyright violations by an admin (who can see the deleted content). All interested admins are invited to perform such a check and, if no copyvio is found, undelete the article. The alternative would be for an interested editor to rewrite the article from scratch, which may be faster (it was quite short). Sandstein 11:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Martin Süskind (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Underline formatting is mine. Page created 2022-01-31T20:25:43 by Bestof2022, blocked in response to a 2022-03-01 ANI thread. Speedy deletion reason: "G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Friedjof) in violation of ban or block" Last edit summary of the deleted page, me removing a fresh PROD, over 15 minutes before the speedy deletion happened: "It's not that easy. Regarding 'sock': The user wasn't blocked at the time of creation, on any account. Regarding NBIO, WP:NAUTHOR#1 may be satisfied per "Further reading" added now. Wikidata-linked to the German article. I don't generally oppose deleting the article, but I oppose doing so without a proper AfD discussion." Well, this may have been overlooked! So I asked Dennis Brown on his talk page which block he was talking about. The specific question was not answered; I asked again. Turns out there is actually no such block.[10] Okay, I said! If there's no actual speedy deletion reason, I will probably undelete the page (?!)... I don't agree with unilaterally undeleting it. I think the spirit of policy is more important than the letter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Here's the spirit: Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases, the rest goes through a deletion discussion or stays on Wikipedia. "Speedy deletion is meant to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion. Speedy deletion should not be used except in the most obvious cases." (WP:DELPOL#Speedy_deletion) "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion" (WP:CSD, sentence 1) "Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." (WP:CSD, lead) "[The G5 criterion] applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others." (WP:G5, sentence 1) "To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." (WP:G5) What kind of "policy spirit" can possibly be seen in the exact opposite of what the policies say and mean? The strong formatting is there for a reason. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Edge cases of G5 usually turn on why the article's creator was banned. Here, it's for - direct from the ANI section title - "socking, block evasion, vote stacking, copyvio, BLP problems", and their SPI also mentions they were banned from de: for source forgery. It's absolutely proper to speedy articles written by such a user even if that they were written before we noticed the problems. It's different if someone was banned for, say, edit warring or personal attacks or such. Endorse. That aside, if you've read the sources - and as a native German speaker, you're in a better position to do so than most - can confirm that the article is ok, and are willing to take full responsibility for the content, undeleting is fine too. —Cryptic 15:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC) The article wasn't without problems; it did indeed suffer from at least one problem described at ANI: The title was mistranslated ("Süßkind"), and I moved it. There may be similar issues I haven't yet noticed, and they can be fixed. Or the entire article can be AfDd if there's a disagreement about the notability, which would be perfectly reasonable. But I'm a bit baffled both by the action and your "absolutely proper" unless you say it's an IAR action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Well, since the user (sockmaster and sockpuppet) wasn't blocked when the article was made G5 doesn't apply, and one could argue that ToBeFree's edit was "substantial edits by others". On the other hand, if the article is written by someone blocked for copyright violations and source forgery, I would recommend a thorough check of the article before restoring it. So I am not going to say "overturn", but I can't quite say "endorse" either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Obviously I endorse my own deletion. Given the source of creation, someone known to have BLP, copyright and other issues, I felt a deletion was in the best interest of Wikipedia. That they were blocked "late" doesn't mean that much to me. Call it IAR, or whatever you want, sometimes the best course of action is to comply with the spirit of the policy, or perhaps the goal of the policy, which I feel this does because of the unique situation we are in with the author. Normally I would not have deleted an article with this particular timing, this was the exception, again, due to the actor involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC) It wasn't speedy eligible--that seems to be generally agreed. And I'm not a fan of IAR when it comes to speedies because there is no meaningful way for non-admins to even find these to object to. And we've seen a lot of abuse of CSD here, so it's not a theoretic issue. That said, if ever there was a case for it, this is it--we can't have copyright or source forgery around. But even so, I think AfD would have been a better choice--a note at the top of the article expressing concerns about possible issues would have been enough IMO. So overturn and send to AfD is where I'm at. If we're really concerned, we could blank the article during the AfD with a note explaining why. That would seem to address any issues. If you feel that creation by a sock later blocked for copyright/source forging should be a speedy criteria, propose it. But based on the existent wording, I think that option was considered and rejected. Hobit (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC) In no circumstances should we undelete without an admin doing a copyvio check. That being said, from what I can tell here, I endorse the deletion on IAR grounds given the weight of what's gone on here. The easiest remedy available would be to recreate the article from scratch, if it's indeed a notable topic. SportingFlyer T·C 00:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC) If G5 doesn't cover BLPs made by users banned at any time after CCI review... then it probably should. I do recall sometime in the past six months I had declared that I could not think of a single reason for an IAR speedy, but if this is covered neither by G5, G10, or G12... then I guess I was wrong. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Yeah. If someone is making content so bad we ban them isn't enough reason to delete that content without further discussion, then we aren't maintaining an encyclopedia; we're following the letter of the rule for no other reason than to follow the letter of the rule. —Cryptic 19:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Oh, I should probably have pointed this out earlier. The article wasn't a BLP at any time. Hut 8.5's copyright concerns below, finally actually citing a policy, are more convincing to me than BLP concerns in this specific case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC) This is...interesting, for a defintion of the word. I'm not in a position to do so myself, but could an(other) admin do a G12 check, as that would be a gordian knot method to resolve it. Like Hobit, I share the reticence on IAR speedies (my IAR in general is anomalous keeping, not deleting, but that's me) - but this is certainly a legitimate case. Hobit's proposal is probably the best means of trying to balance all our different policy goals, but it feels like it might be a needless bureaucratic generation (whereas I feel this DRV is well worth having), so maybe I'm "weak overturn to afd?" if there isn't a G12 issue. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC) This user was banned for copyright infringement in translation. It's not a matter of googling likely-looking phrases. —Cryptic 19:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC) The best answer here is to create a fresh article from scratch that we know doesn't infringe. Copyright infringing editors are a lot of work to clean up after, so we sometimes take pragmatic shortcuts including deletions that might not otherwise be strictly within criteria. I think this is justified because the infringing editor doesn't get the assumption of good faith everyone else does -- AGF doesn't survive the evidence of bad faith -- so the procedures that protect that editor's contributions from arbitrary deletion don't apply. German to English is a fairly easy language pair so this content was hardly irreplaceable.—S Marshall T/C 00:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC) I agree that's best, but we have a (very) experienced editor asking for the material. And they are correct in that there is no relevant speedy criteria that this falls under (AFAICT). If they want to start there, I'm okay with it. And if folks want it deleted we all know where AfD is. I'm very conservative on IARs for CSDs, but I'll agree when there is no other choice. I've outlined what I think is a workable choice. I'd rather we follow our own rules rather than taking short cuts when it comes to a process as opaque to regular users as speedy deletions. Hobit (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC) I haven't seen where he is asking for the material. He seems to simply be protesting the deletion, ie: this isn't about access, it's about procedure. Being an admin, he can already see the material even though it's deleted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Well, I agree with Hobit that we should normally follow the procedures and it's DRV's role to see that they are followed. But WP:CCI has open cases from twelve years ago and their job is positively Augean. It really is a slog, in which violations that took thirty seconds to create need many hours to find and remove. Those people do a job I wouldn't volunteer for. I'm proud of Wikipedia's high standards on copyright, and I'm willing to support actions by the CCI team that I wouldn't support in other areas of our work. The thing is that we're here to write an encyclopaedia, not to steal one. This particular case is made much harder by the fact that it's an interlanguage copyvio. Those are really hard to work with even for an editor with dual fluency (because the way ToBeFree might translate a German phrase might not be exactly how I translate it). But we don't have a huge army of multilingual copyright investigators. On balance I feel that in such cases precautionary deletion can be the lesser evil. The alternative is to leave copyvios up indefinitely.—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC) If the conclusion of the discussion is that the deletion was fine, this list of remaining article creations may be next. It currently contains 53 pages that have been created by Bestof2022 but not yet deleted, and some of these page creations are current revisions. It's worth having this discussion, and yes, it's not about access. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Ugh. I don't want to say it was "fine". My position is that it was an acceptable shortcut with some collateral damage.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC) (sorry, I didn't mean to imply any position specifically from you, in case that was the impression.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Cases like this are always tough. It's rare that I would push policy to the breaking point, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. I think people here know me well enough to know I'm careful about what I delete, even when acting very boldly. So I completely understand and respect the couple here that disagree. As for the remaining 53 pages, of course I wouldn't support just rapidly deleting them, but I think it would be helpful if someone "adopted" the list and started going through them, not with a fine toothed comb, but well enough to be reasonably sure they aren't violating copyright law or BLP. If there is any question as to copyright status, they can be recreated in draft and merge/revdel or just deleted and recreated via CSD/AFD depending on the cirumstances. Part of this is not rewarding a sock, this is true, but the copyright issue overrides other concerns. Half of them might be fine, some may need a little revdel, and some may need removing. We don't know until we dig in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC) For the record, if it isn't obvious, I'm quite certain you did this because you were looking out for the best for the encyclopedia. I just feel you may have picked the greater of the two evils, but fully acknowledge this is anything but clear. Hobit (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC) This is the same user from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelika Willing, which I think is an instructive AfD.—S Marshall T/C 00:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC) While this isn't technically a valid G5, the deletion is at least consistent with policy and it wouldn't be a good idea to restore it. Policy does allow the presumptive deletion of content added by people with a history of copyright problems, especially people with CCI cases (as this editor does). Since the copyright problems associated with this editor involve translation from German websites it would be difficult to establish that it isn't a copyright violation. Frankly it's not worth it, the article was fairly short and I'm sure an editor who isn't banned could write a non-copyvio version. If someone does want the sources in the article to help with that (all in German) I'd be happy to provide them. Hut 8.5 13:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC) I should add that the correct procedure in this case would have been to blank it and list it at WP:CP for a week. This would almost certainly have led to deletion though unless it was completely rewritten. Hut 8.5 17:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC) We shouldn't be using the techicalities of procedure to defeat substantial equity. Our rules on copyvio are important, and ndd to be interpreted strictly, but they equally need to be interpreted within their stated narrow limits, or they do not serve the encycopedia. When there;'s a substantial disagreement in good faith about how to proceed among established editors, a new discussion is needed. We can deal with the quantity of such discussions, because most similar requests are not in good faith and do not have to be-litigated.We know how to tell thew difference. DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC) I don't know whether G5 or G12 were met, or borderline. At the very least, list the references from the deleted article, perhaps here. The reference list carries no creative content and cannot be copyrighted and its reuse does not involve attribution to the blocked user. "Start from scratch" is unreasonably harsh, at least provide the references. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC) All external links present in the deleted article's last revision: https://www.fr.de/kultur/martin-sueskind-gestorben-11527890.html https://www.guj.de/news/neuigkeiten/einzelansicht/martin-e-sueskind-gibt-chefredaktion-der-berliner-zeitung-ab https://www.ksta.de/ex-chefredakteur-martin-e--sueskind-ist-gestorben-12982856 https://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/renommierter-journalist-und-autor-martin-e-sueskind-ist-tot-a-648812.html https://taz.de/Ex-Chefredakteur-der-Berliner-Zeitung-tot/!5156163/ No offline-only references have been cited. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archive

Archives, by year and month

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2022	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2021	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2020	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2019	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2018	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2016	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2015	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2014	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2013	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2012	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2011	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2010	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2009	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2006	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec