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 May 8}}</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 May 8}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2022 May 8|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

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

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

Active discussions

6 May 2022

Flags of counties of the United States (closed)

Flags of counties of the United States – Procedural closure. The review request makes no sense. Sandstein 10:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Flags of counties of the United States (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This article was written like a non-free gallery of images, which means a subject of non-free images which is the images have been copyrighted and too much blank spaces, which means a little of WP:LISTCRUFT. 182.3.41.210 (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Are you appealing against deletion? From what I can make out you seem to be supporting it, which is unnecessary. I'm afraid that if you want this discussion to go ahead you will have to explain your reasoning a bit better. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC) This does not appear to be an appeal against deletion. Can the requester please explain what it is they want to happen? Stifle (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Speedy close No valid rationale for overturning the deletion has been provided, in fact, judging from the IPs other edits, they seem to support it, so... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Assuming there is a request for review somewhere here, I endorse the closure of the deletion discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Question - Is the filing editor confused, or is a troll requesting to be fed? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Endorse. Tell the IP to WP:Register or get out of projectspace. Probably a trolling sock. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 May 2022

Thirupathi (2006 Kannada film)

Thirupathi (2006 Kannada film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed on the basis of no sources. There are plenty. Several reviews here, here and here. Sources about production here, here, here and here. Box office source here. Easiest if the article is restored. Please rename the article Tirupathi (2006 Kannada film) as that is what is in the sources. The film Thirupathi (film) should be renamed to Thirupathi (2006 Tamil film) after this article comes into fruition. DareshMohan (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse the deletion outcome which could not have been closed any other way. Nothing prevents a new article being created that overcomes the reason for deletion. If you would like the previous article restored as a draft for you to build on, the place to go for that is WP:REFUND. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Closer's comment: I wasn't contacted before the DRV was filed. I stand by my close as an accurate assessment of the consensus reached but that was also 15 months ago and since the editor has sources not present or discussed at the time of deletion, I happy to restore to draft space for further development. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  I should have been clear. By "Happy to do it" I literally meant it and thus did it. The article has been restored to Draft:Thirupathi (2006 Kannada film). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse and allow review of draft or creation of article. I have a minor complaint, that it wasn't closed on the basis of no sources, but on the basis of no reliable sources providing significant coverage. In any case, the title is not salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse the closure of the deletion discussion. The OP can recreate the article if they have high quality sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse. People who think they can overcome a past reason to delete need better advice than to bring it to DRV. People who don’t know whether their new sources overcome the past reason to delete should try WP:AfC to draft it and get an AFC reviewer’s opinion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

3 May 2022

List of The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson episodes

List of The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson episodes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as "no consensus", in what seems both A) a SUPERVOTE and B) an inaccurate summary of the discussion, one which does not consider the strength of arguments.

The supervote is that, apparently, the consensus (or similar lack thereof) of a previous discussion must be followed otherwise "this would result in a complete mess". Not only, as explained to the closer on their talk page, can consensus change, but a "consensus" at one time and at one place which ignores a very fundamental aspect of policy (WP:NOT) certainly does not hold enough, if any, weight, to support this conclusion (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). This is a supervote because nobody made this specific argument (there were plenty of "keep per my previous arguments", but no "keep because of the previous discussion").

Furthermore, even ignoring this, the close fundamentally fails to weight !votes in line with policy. While a superficial count might reveal what appears like equality, most if not all of the keep !votes only have a very thin grounding (if any) in policy. "keep because of size restrictions" or "keep this is valid information" both assume that this is valid information, without proof, and without engaging with the NOT argument (or the lack of reliable sources as pointed out by me). And again, a consensus at one time and at one place cannot ignore broader policy which explicitly mentions this kind of stuff as not being "valid information".

I've attempted to discuss this with the closer, but all I've heard so far has been crickets. Anyways, this should be overturned to delete RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse, those advocating for deletion use weak arguments such as WP:IINFO, which is for unexplained statistics and data without context. This is in no way "a list of things made without care or distinction," rather a list of episodes provide value by giving context as to what the show is about. Another key argument for deletion is WP:NOTTVGUIDE, but that's not what these lists are. They do not list upcoming events, nor current promotions, nor current schedules, nor format clocks. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• That being said, I do not and can not endorse the closer's lack of engagement when the close was questioned. That is a fundamental failure of WP:ADMINACCT: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how INDISCRIMINATE is a "weak argument" when the first element within it is "1. Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works". This is exactly that and is a much stronger argument than the opposite, which is mere personal opinion (not backed up even by a link to policy) that this is "valid information". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

In addition, I've always found that the correct interpretation of WP:NOT is usually wider than what a strict lawyer-like reading of it would suggest. This is also supported by WP:BADIDEA. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It is fundamentally dangerous for you to interpret WP:NOT wider than how it is read. TV episode lists are an entrenched aspect of Wikipedia, and if you want them deleted I suggest you start an RfC. Using a WP:NOT backdoor that does not support deleting TV episodes is not how to do it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

TV episode lists are an entrenched aspect of Wikipedia is only your opinion, and not Wikipedia policy (like the keep comments arguing that this is "valid information", when it in fact cites no reliable source and thus also fails WP:V). WP:NOT (which includes WP:IINFO - which you incorrectly dismiss as a "weak argument"; and WP:BADIDEA), on the other hand, is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It may be ANOTHERTHING argument, but yeah, TV episode lists are darn common. Hobit (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse this is fundamentally a dispute over whether the content is encyclopedic: the Delete side say it isn't and the Keep side say it is. "Encyclopedic" is a very loosely defined term and whether or not something is encyclopedic is largely left up to editors' judgement, leaving little scope for strength of argument. While WP:NOT does list various cases of things which are not considered encyclopedic, most comments relied on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is extremely general. I also agree with the closer that it doesn't make sense for these lists to be treated separately from another collection of lists of episodes of the same programme. It's true that consensus can change, but there isn't any reason for separate consensuses to apply to each group of lists, and in any case it's very unlikely that consensus has changed in such a short period of time. Hut 8.5 18:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Hut 8.5: I don't see how "WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is extremely general" when it literally mentions, first-up, "Summary-only descriptions of works" and even before how "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" (and both of these are rather accurate descriptions of stuff like List_of_The_Late_Late_Show_with_Craig_Ferguson_episodes_(2011)). Someone saying it is "valid information" isn't very far from a WP:ILIKEIT argument, somebody saying this fails WP:NOT is much more convincing and shouldn't have been dismissed by the closer simply because there was a similar discussion previously (which is one year ago, so not exactly "yesterday"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  "Valid information" is a statement that the content is encyclopedic, which carries as much weight as a statement that the content is not encyclopedic (e.g. "these lists offer almost no value"). The "Summary-only descriptions of works" bit means you can't have an article which is solely comprised of plot summary, this is certainly not interpreted to mean that all lists of TV episodes are unacceptable. There was a reasonable argument put forward that this programme shouldn't have lists of episodes because it isn't scripted, but AFAIK there isn't any policy/guideline basis for this, so it's just an opinion. As the closer said, I fail to see any rational reason why List of The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson episodes should be deleted but List of The Late Late Show with James Corden episodes should not be. They should clearly be considered together, and not doing so was a flaw in the discussion. Hut 8.5 19:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  "Summary" has multiple meanings, including a short statement of the main ideas or facts in a report, discussion, etc.. Stuff like List of The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson episodes (2011), which consists of solely a table with a list of guests and musical entertainers, is pretty much a "summary" description of it. Whether some people think it is "valid information" doesn't mean it doesn't fail NOT, something which the closer should have recognised. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think that is unambiguously a "summary", and that clause is normally invoked in the case of plot/content summaries. That argument, if accepted, would also apply to most of the (many) lists of TV episodes on Wikipedia, for example there are about 80 featured lists which are lists of TV episodes, and I think your rationale would lead to most of them being deleted. All NOT really says on this case is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we should delete unencyclopedic content, even if verifiable. Exactly what constitutes "unencyclopedic" is largely left to editorial judgement. Hut 8.5 07:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• endorse there is no consensus about how to handle these. That seems plain. There also was a very recent discussion and I don't think it's clear that NOT applies here. Hobit (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse - Sometimes we hear an appeal where the appellant says that the closer supervoted. Such a call should be overturned, unless policy is clear and the participants were just plain wrong. However, this appears to be an appeal where the appellant is saying that the closer did not supervote. It is true that the closer did not supervote in this case, because there really was a scattering of arguments. There was no obligation to supervote. Sometimes no consensus is really no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse WP:IINFO is cited badly all the time. I was going to lambast the appellant for raising obviously specious arguments, but it turns out that WP:NEPISODE is itself a dumpster fire of an essay masquerading as an SNG. I've repaired it somewhat, but it's therefore excusable that good faith editors would try to hold episodes to a higher bar than the GNG, based on its inappropriate emphases. Having said that, no, "list of" episodes of a notable television show are always kept unless there's V problems or other critical fails with the list itself. Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • On second thought Overturn to keep since no policy-based deletion arguments were advanced. Due weight to each side clearly leans to keep. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    That's the most nonsense I've seen on Wikipedia in a while. Articles which consist solely of prose-less database-like tables obviously fail WP:NOT, no matter whether some people claim its "valid information" or not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

    Except this is not AFD Round 2. What you're arguing is whether you think the pages should be deleted, not whether the closer judged the consensus correctly. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

    No, what I'm doing is correctly pointing out that the closer gave the same weight to different arguments when in fact, in light of policy (such as NOT), they shouldn't hold nearly the same weight. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

    Which part of WP:NOT do you feel this violates? A few of the comments referred to WP:NOTTVGUIDE which doesn't appear to be applicable here as it concerns current programming. NemesisAT (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

    Maybe the "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." part from the same section? or the WP:NOTDATABASE part that "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." (an argument which none of the keep !votes even attempted to address). Or maybe even the more fundamental part that all of these NOT-failing lists also fail WP:V? A few people arguing that its "valid information" does not mean a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can override broader policy, particularly when the fail is obvious like here, and the closer erred in this aspect of giving equal weight to less valid arguments of the WP:ILIKEIT and WP:LASTTIME type. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

    You're right, actually. In the final opinion listed, you did articulate actual deletion rationales; no one else before you did. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

    Equally, neither side (the keep nor the delete side) made much of any policy-based arguments on how this list actually meets or fails Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, and most that did, did not give any sort of rationale as to how. As Jclemens has stated, you were the only one to actually give any sort of rationale that wasn't just a "per policy" argument. All of the other arguments were mostly based on ITUSEFUL/NOTUSEFUL, and the preceding delete rationales, cannot be assumed to be in support of your rationale, since their rationale wasn't the same as yours (and yours came after theirs did). That's probably why both the keep and the delete side were given equal or close to equal weight. WP:RENOM is probably your best course of action at this point. The fact that this was closed as "no consensus" and not "keep", should actually go in your favor, seeing as "no consensus" closures are strictly procedural and not the same as a straightforward keep, delete, redirect or merge closure. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the debate. AFD does not operate on a precedent system and it was improper for the closer to refer to the outcome of a different article's debate as a reason not to delete. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  But that was exactly what some of the participants argued. It would only have been improper if I had pulled that rationale out of thin air. SpinningSpark 08:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse Evidently there is no consensus as to whether the content fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. NemesisAT (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse The AFD was relisted twice and still ended with no consensus. DRV is not AFD Round 2 and this DRV seems to be more based on the initiator not agreeing with the outcome, as opposed to actually citing any problem with how the closer judged the consensus.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse. Neither side put forward particularly convincing arguments. Claiming Wikipedia is not TV Guide/IMDb without any substance amounts to WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Looks like a sound closure to me. ✗plicit 12:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn (revert the close) due to WP:ADMINACCT failure. Let another admin re-close. It doesn’t matter if it is reclosed the same way, but it matters that the closer is available to discuss the close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

2 May 2022

David Rohl

David Rohl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Majority was KEEP, subject met NOTABILITY guidelines, yet admin chose minority position of REDIRECT TuckerResearch (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close - WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, the redirect arguments were rooted in policy and the keep arguments were not. There's still no actual, point-by-point explanation of how Rohl meets the notability guidelines. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I know WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, but a majority is a marker of WP:CONSENSUS. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Another really painfully bad discussion. The nomination had nothing to do with our inclusion guidelines. Nearly all the keep and most of the delete arguments had similar issues. @Tuckerresearch: can you provide the best three or four sources that you believe contribute to him meeting WP:GNG, WP:PROF, or some other guideline? If secondary, reliable, independent sources exist that cover him in some detail (say each with a paragraph or more) this will likely be overturned. If not, the redirect will likely stay. At the moment I'm at "overturn to relist with a note asking people to focus on sources that count toward the GNG". Hobit (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Certainly, @Hobit: and others.

• Here is a reference to David Rohl and his band Mandalaband in a history of prog rock: Romano, W. (2010). Mountains Come Out of the Sky: The Illustrated History of Prog Rock. Backbeat Books. ISBN 978-1-61713-375-6. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
• Here in Italian book on "opera rock" and the concept album: Follero, D.; Zoppo, D. (2018). Opera Rock: La storia del concept album (in Italian). Hoepli. ISBN 978-88-203-8492-0. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

That's just two real quick, outside his work on the New Chronology. On the subject of ancient history, biblical history, biblical chronology, and Egyptology, he is referenced in many books. Yes, often to bash his views on the New Chronology, but nevertheless, to discuss him.

• Here is a bit about his theory on the location of the Garden of Eden, which is a theory that does not rest on his alternative New Chronology: Weir, J. (2007). In Search of Eden: The Course of an Obsession. Armchair Traveller Series. Haus. ISBN 978-1-905791-07-1. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

Outside his work on the New Chronology, which the DELETE voters and REDIRECT voters mistakenly claim is his only claim to notability, his work on pre-dynastic rock art in the Eastern Desert (east of the Nile) in Egypt (Rohl, David M., ed. The Followers of Horus: Eastern Desert Survey Report. Basingstoke, UK: Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences, 2000.) is well-cited by other, mainstream scholars, which contributes to his notability.

• Rohl, David M., ed. The Followers of Horus: Eastern Desert Survey Report. Basingstoke, UK: Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences, 2000.
• See the Google Scholar citations here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=6604976640384538213&as_sdt=5,44&sciodt=0,44&hl=en.

How is that for a start? TuckerResearch (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Would you mind if I reformat that (or you do) to make it more readable? It's a bit hard to parse as a wall of text. Hobit (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I reformatted it a tad. Do what you think best. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:Tuckerresearch that the page should have been kept under its original name, without a redirect, seeing that that was the consensus of contributing editors.Davidbena (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with TuckerResearch. There is a wealth of RSs on Rohl, easily available via WikiLibrary and elsewhere, for example:

• Hübner, Ulrich (1999). "Review of Pharaonen und Propheten. Das Alte Testament auf dem Prüfstand by David Rohl". Antike Welt. 30 (2): 205–206. Retrieved 3 May 2022.
• Halkin, H (1999). "Can the Bible Be Trusted?". Commentary. 108 (1): 39. Retrieved 3 May 2022.
• Philip, Graham (Oct 1999). "Reviews". History Today. 49 (10): 56. Retrieved 3 May 2022.
• Martin, J (1996). "Dating Solomon's wife". America. 174 (1): 15. Retrieved 3 May 2022.
• Rohl, David (2001). "Opener of the ways: Egypt's oldest maps discovered in the Eastern Desert". Mercator’s World. 6 (6): 40. Retrieved 3 May 2022.

Cabrils (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse, reasonable closure. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse, I too think this was a reasonable close. The "keeps" were really bad there, incredibly poor quality with lots of hallmarks of COI editing and offwiki canvassing, including direct attacks on the nominator's motives and competence.—S Marshall T/C 13:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you not feel the need too notice the "direct attack" of the original person who nominated the article for deletion? See the diff, which done in a derogatory manner with some apparent malice! TuckerResearch (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

P.S. - I'll quote the original nomination: "Amateur psuedo-academic using Wikipedia to get Google to label him an Egyptologist and as a WP:Soapbox to push fringe theories." This violates WP:BLP, I think. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Restore -- I am not sure that David Rohl is notable apart from his controversial chronological theory, which, I have to say, I found stimulating when I first read it. This is in a sense a fringe subject on the boundaries of history/archaeology. I suspect that he has indeed published quite a bit, apart from his initial work. I do not think he deserves a full length bio, but equally we need to know who he is, assuming we can produce something that is not an attack article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse as participant. The close was reasonable; this is not the place to relitigate it. XOR'easter (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe it is literally the place to relitigate it! :-) TuckerResearch (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Endorse with the comment that the target of the redirect, New Chronology (Rohl), isn't as wacky as New Chronology (Fomenko), and the further comment that Wikipedia has often had a problem with how much coverage to give to fringe theories and fringe theorists. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I could also point out that the original nominator has commented that another "fringe theorist" when it comes to ancient chronology, Peter James, should not be called a "historian." (See: Talk:Peter James (historian)#Writer, not historian.) By the by, the Peter James article was once upon a time nominated for deletion. The result was KEEP. If James was a KEEP, Rohl should have been a KEEP. There are numerous sources for Rohl, he has a career outside the New Chronology that is referenced by reliable sources (see my comments above), and Wikipedia has lots of articles about "fringe" writers outside their theories: Thor Heyerdahl, Erich Von Daniken, Immanuel Velikovsky, ad nauseum. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I have seen your comments above and see nothing but the most passing of passing mentions in reliable sources. This is certainly no Heyerdahl, von Däniken or Velikovsky. Please also note that to be notable in terms of citations requires them to be numbered in the thousands, not a couple of dozen. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse I'd originally closed this as "no consensus" before it was brought to my attention on my talk page that I did a WP:BADNAC closure (I hadn't closed any AFD's in a long time, so BADNAC kind of slipped my mind). Sandstein is correct that the keeps were not based on policy, and since redirecting is close enough to a deletion, and only the delete/redirect side was actually based on policy, I'd say Sandstein's closure was correct and that my closure was improper (and that I should've left it to an administrator, since it was such a close call and wasn't an obvious keep/delete/redirect/whichever).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I would also like to note, that this DRV is also malformed as the initiator of this DRV did not tag the AFD as being under deletion review.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  I've went ahead and done this now.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse and allow re-creation at AfC. The arguments in favor of keeping the page are really not arguments that have any strength in light of WP:PAG, which is the lens through which arguments are evaluated for their strengths. Redirects are cheap and the alternative to deletion made sense. There does appear to be coverage of his work that might lead him to meeting WP:NAUTHOR#3 if he has created at least one significant or well-known book that has been covered by multiple independent reliable sources. But this argument didn't really come up at all during the AfD, so the closure was appropriate given the arguments presented. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• Relist. There appears to be sufficient sources requiring analysis to justify “delete” or “pseudodelete by redirect”. I’m not sure where new sources are being listed here, and were unmentioned in the AfD, but I am sure that further source analysis is a good idea. Some effort is needed to discard the poor quality “keeps”, as without that effort there is a bias to delete. For those arguing to “keep”, read the advice at WP:THREE. You need two or three good sources, and if you don’t have them, then many poor sources won’t suffice, and you will be perceived as wasting others’ time.

I see the discussion at Talk:New_Chronology_(Rohl)#Poor_merger_decision,_poor_merge_action. The AfD did not find consensus to merge, and it looks like merging is not a good idea, so do not merge. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

1 May 2022

David Firth

David Firth (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

So I heard tell of Mr. Firth's Twitter thread re: Wikipedia deleting his wiki page, and I took a look. I am surprised that the article was deleted.

David Firth has substantial coverage that should meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Ignoring news articles that are focused solely on Salad Fingers, I was still able to find a good handful with Google. I've created articles with less sourcing than this.

First off, you've got a news article on the deletion itself as a newsworthy event, published literally today:

• Foster, George (May 1, 2022). "Salad Fingers Creator David Firth Wiped From Wikipedia After Being Deemed "Not Notable Enough"". TheGamer. Retrieved May 1, 2022.

Next, you've got multiple magazine articles on David Firth's other projects, including collaboration with wiki-notable individuals (music and film, not related to Salad Fingers):

• Minsker, Evan (May 30, 2017). "Flying Lotus Appears in David Firth's Creepy New Short Film: Watch". Pitchfork. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
• "Flying Lotus features in a short film by David Firth". DIY. May 31, 2017. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
• Kim, Michelle Hyun (October 30, 2017). "David Firth ("Salad Fingers") Shares New Locust Toybox Album: Listen". Pitchfork. Retrieved May 1, 2022.

The deletion discussion mentioned that there was an interview with The Scottish Sun, which is not a reliable source. Well, here's an interview with a local NPR affiliate, which should be more reliable:

• Eicholtz, Kayla (August 14, 2013). "Youth Report: A Conversation With British Animator David Firth". WKMS-FM. Retrieved May 1, 2022.

And, last but not least, David Firth being extensively quoted in a BBC News article as an expert on Flash animation, after Adobe Flash was discontinued:

• Fox, Chris (January 1, 2021). "Adobe Flash Player is finally laid to rest". BBC News. Retrieved May 1, 2022.

All this together should be enough to establish his notability for Wikipedia purposes and the suitability of the page existing as a standalone article. Hopefully I've fixed the formatting that I initially screwed up. Please let me know if I missed anything, as this is the first deletion review that I've requested. RexSueciae (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse: I don't believe this is what deletion review is for. Deletion review is for challenging AfD outcomes based on the arguments provided at that particular discussion. If you believe there is sufficient sourcing to establish notability of the subject, you should present it at Draft:David Firth (animator) and re-submit for review.

Basically all of the sources you provide have already been presented at the draft article, and it has been declined regardless. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Declined stuff at AFC is no bar to, well, anything. Hobit (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Something which occurs to me is that the draft -- which is not great -- doesn't just have the (reliable, independent secondary) sources listed above; it also has a whole bunch of other stuff that may not be usable. Same with the original article. Prune out all the cruft; what you have left is a shorter article with a handful of good sources. RexSueciae (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

RexSueciae, go right ahead, that's what AfC is for. Submit your version and get further input. Throast (talk | contribs) 00:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• endorse-ish and restore It wasn't a great discussion frankly. The closer did what they could. But the sources do look good. But I think Pitchfork (website) and Vice (magazine) are reliable. The NPR interview is probably not worth much (local, an interview) to most people but I find those to be both useful for (mostly primary) sourcing and indicative of notability. And most importantly, TheGamer (which is generally considered reliable for things published after August 2020) has a new article pretty much solely on him. It was a poor discussion, new sources have been brought forward, and frankly this person appears over the bar for a WP:BLP based on WP:THREE if nothing else. Hobit (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS in regard to the TheGamer article, that's been published literally hours ago. Vice and Pitchfork don't amount to significant coverage of David Firth, but of his works. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

So where would Salad Fingers (and quite a few other internet creations) be without Firth? He's some kind of shadowy unknown figure, that no-one has ever heard of? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

RexSueciae, tagging editors, who haven't been involved in the deletion discussion and have already taken a favorable position to your proposal elsewhere, is canvassing. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

How exactly was I tagged (and canvassed)? I was watching already. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I've provided a diff above. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't brought to that discussion by User:RexSueciae. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

That does not matter. RexSueciae didn't know you were watching. They saw your comments at Talk:David Firth and tagged you. That's the extent of it. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

In that edit he moved my comment to the bottom of the page. So he "canvassed me"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

For god's sake. Look at the entire diff. I can't do more than link it to you. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

You can explain your rationale, thanks. You're saying I "haven't been involved in the deletion discussion"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Throast pardon me, but on these discussions I thought it was best practice to notify as many involved parties as practical. Hence I posted on the talk page of the article being reviewed. I did not cross-reference users involved in the deletion discussion and users commenting on that page, as I assumed they'd have been already involved. RexSueciae (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse AfD decision. The sources provided by RexSueciae don't provide significant coverage of the person and they don't meet WP:BASIC. (Interviews generally don't contribute to notability because they aren't considered independent.) Schazjmd (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn AfD decision. The new TheGamer source which talks significantly about Firth taken with the Vice, Pitchfork, and various other sources should constitute enough published material to meet WP:Notability. Mistipolis (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Using a very recent news piece as the main pillar of significant coverage, especially one that's been written in response to the subject decrying the deletion of his own Wikipedia article and one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies, doesn't sit right with me. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse but restore. I endorse the "redirect" close as an accurate assessment of the consensus that complies with Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I support restoration per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that I found through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.
  1. Ball, Ryan (June 2007). "Rising Stars of Animation and VFX Class of 2007. David Firth: Animator, www.Fat-Pie.com". Animation Magazine. Vol. 21, no. 6. p. 32. ISSN 1041-617X. EBSCOhost 505211778.

     This is a 254-word article. The article notes: "If you think you've seen it all when it comes to web animation, you haven't been to a little site called Fat-Pie.com. British animator David Firth offers up a brilliant and original hodgepodge of hilarity, stupidity and unshakable creepiness. ... When he was 13, Firth got a camcorder and started making stop-motion shorts using LEGOs and other toys. He still does some model animation from time to time but mostly creates 2D animation using Microsoft Paint and Flash. He describes his style as "a lazy, less brightly colored version of South Park with smaller eyes" and counts among his influences Chris Morris, Jan Svankmajer, Stanley Kubrick and Franz Kafka. He was recently asked to create four new animated pieces for the British TV series Screenwipe."

  2. Ramsey, Will (2009-04-13). "The little green man". Hull Daily Mail. p. 18. ProQuest 333617394.

     This is a 527-word article. The article notes: "Created by David Firth, who studied animation at the Hull campus of the University Of Lincoln, each episode follows this lanky character as he stumbles through a baffling world. ... And now David is set to enjoy a retrospective of his work at Glimmer: Hull's Seventh International Short Film Festival. ... David, who grew up in Doncaster, began animating at 13 after he was given a camcorder for Christmas. His first films became a hit with friends and a TV and Film course at the University Of Lincoln followed. It was while he was in Hull that David began to establish his animation techniques - and began to develop the work which has won him a series of contracts with the BBC. There have been animations for Screen Burn - the rantings of TV critic Charlie Brooker - and David is currently completing a cartoon for the new series from comedians Mitchell and Webb. But it's still Salad Fingers for which he's best known - and which all came about after some banter with his friend, and co-writer Christian Pickup."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow David Firth to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

While Hull Daily Mail is a tabloid, the Animation Magazine article finally seems to be a solid instance of significant coverage. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The Hull Daily Mail is not a tabloid in the sense you mean. It is a regional newspaper. You appear to be confusing it with the Daily Mail (a middle market newspaper, which is national to the UK, widely seen as untrustworthy because of its political leaning) - or the American conception of a tabloid; a gossip magazine. Neither of these definitions applies. 51.6.79.19 (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"widely seen as untrustworthy because of its political leaning" No, it's widely seen as untrustworthy because they just make things up. --JBL (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain a bit why? There seems to be quite a lot of coverage of him and work outside of Salad Fingers in various well regarded publications including the BBC (above) or The Guardian, and he is a quite well known figure generally. Certainly the coverage of the deletion of this article alone is quite emblematic of that. LegateLaurie (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

mis-clicked and accidentally linked the Wikipedia page for The Guardian rather than the article, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/jan/26/flying-lotus-kuso-sundance-walkout LegateLaurie (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn AfD decision with use of the 2007 Animation Magazine at least. And no problem with the other suggested new sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse but restore. I agree that Sandstein did the best he could with a low quality discussion. It was dominated by the nominator, Throast, who seems to have a number of serious misunderstandings about our notability policies, including WP:NARTIST with the claim that the author of a notable body of work cannot 'inherit' (in reverse?) notability from their work. Clearly if, as appears to be the case here, an author's body of work (not just one work) is notable, then we can have an article about it. But following Throast's logic, that article is only allowed to exist at David Firth's body of work instead of David Firth (animator)? Because somehow material about a work a person created is not "biographical"? And we can't use non-independent but otherwise reliable sources (e.g. interviews) to flesh it out with more direct biographical details? That serves no benefit to either us or our readers. This line of argument was in fact refuted by Martinevans123 and PantheonRadiance in the AfD but for whatever reason they didn't manage to sway the consensus. Based on the AfD discussion, I think Firth is notable – moreso now since coverage about this deletion have appeared in reliable sources (Throast's implication above that WP:NOTNEWS prevents us from using these is another misunderstanding of policy). I think the best thing to do now is develop Draft:David Firth (animator) and move it back to mainspace after this DRV has run its course. – Joe (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  I gave up, as I thought I was being treated with contempt and disdain. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Joe Roe, I feel you're mischaracterizing my argument in the deletion discussion a bit. Never did I claim that interviews could not be used at all, of course they can. If non-independent, they cannot however help establish the subject's notability, which I believe we all agree with? WP:NARTIST outlines indicators of notability. I still feel that we need to discern between artists and their works, if only their works are subject to significant coverage. That being said, I've changed my mind now that new information has come to light thanks to Cunard's research. Martinevans123, these sort of discussions do become quite contentious at times, and I regret that you feel this way. You have to admit that you didn't exactly help diffuse the tension either, though. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse (tentatively) but would not necessarily object to a restore. The article was deleted under the correct conclusion that it was not verifiable enough to satisfy WP:BLP. The twitter thread is a little embarrassing, but honestly reading the last revision of the article is even more embarrassing to me: the first sentence alone was a string of nouns most not substantiated by the body of the article,

animator, director, writer, musician, actor, voice actor [...]

which all may have been true, but not verified. Or more to the point, justified that much front-loading. I also understand there was a major point of contention over the inclusion birth date. It should not have been included; it did not have a good source, and honestly not that important for understanding the subject. This wasn't formally in the AfD, but I suppose that may have ultimately motivated the delete. With all that being said, I think the subject is notable enough for a concise Start-class article. I think here and in the AfD there is an inappropriate barrier being raised against concluding the notability of the subject that I'd like to address immediately, rather than circumstantially leave it to future AfC review (which isn't going to happen in a vacuum). I looked at the above sources and back-and-fourth between User:Throast and User:Martinevans123.

Y Minsker, Evan (May 30, 2017). "Flying Lotus Appears in David Firth's Creepy New Short Film: Watch". Pitchfork. Retrieved May 1, 2022. — This is a reliable source about the subject and relationship to one of his works.

Y Kim, Michelle Hyun (October 30, 2017). "David Firth ("Salad Fingers") Shares New Locust Toybox Album: Listen". Pitchfork. Retrieved May 1, 2022. — This is a reliable source about the subject and relationship to one of his works.

Y Eicholtz, Kayla (August 14, 2013). "Youth Report: A Conversation With British Animator David Firth". WKMS-FM. Retrieved May 1, 2022. — This is significant coverage of the subject. Would not even say this is a primary source, it is an interview by a radio station with a producer and editorial oversight, not a self-published vlog.

Y Fox, Chris (January 1, 2021). "Adobe Flash Player is finally laid to rest". BBC News. Retrieved May 1, 2022. — This is significant coverage of the subject. It might not be the main topic, but it directly deals with

Sources mentioned in the AfD:

N https://www.thestand.co.uk/performances/1028-10107-salad-fingers-plus-qa-with-creator-david-firth-20211018-newcastle/ — Not a reliable source, this is an events page

N https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/tv-and-film-david-firth-is-taking-salad-fingers-on-a-tour-across-the-uk-20200226 — Not a reliable source, does not mention the subject

Y https://www.unilad.co.uk/viral/david-firth-is-taking-salad-fingers-and-his-rusty-spoons-on-a-tour-of-the-uk — This is a reliable source about the subject and relationship to one of his works.

Y https://narcmagazine.com/interview-david-firth/ — This is a reliable source about the subject and relationship to one of his works.

Y https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/salad-fingers-new-episode-glass-brother-youtube-animation-david-firth-a8757791.html — This is a reliable source about the subject and relationship to one of his works.

N https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/4581467/who-is-david-firth-guy-behind-mc-devvo-and-salad-fingers-inventor/ — Not a reliable source, The Scottish Sun is a tabloid.

So the case I'm making is that it was correct to delete the article for BLP reasons, but not notability reasons, and better off being recreated and reconsidered under the AfC process. JAYFAX (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

* Endorse close and go through the existing draft for an eventual restore - I agree with what others have said about the discussion not being great, but the close was correct based on everything presented there. I think JAYFAX lays out a solid list of sources that could be used and should be incorporated into the draft. Given how contested this appears to be (and the history of Draft:David_Firth_(animator)) I think it's best that the restoration happen thru AFC. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• AfC is not, and should never ever be, a required process. It's so backlogged and so riddled with problems it's basically where you send people when you don't want to deal with their issues. Not where useful things are likely to happen. Hobit (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't say it is or that it should be, I said that I think it's best that, in this specific case, the restoration happens through AfC. That's certainly the least important part of my vote. Either way, multiple other voters in this thread have also voiced this thought, and even more have said they want to see a longer drafting process rather than an immediate restoration. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 17:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see a problem with "immediate restoration", provided that is accompanied, in the minutes and hours immediately afterwards, by addition of the new material and sources that the voters here agree are necessary. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I have created a draft article in my userspace User:JAYFAX/David Firth. It is intentionally short, uses sources discussed here, and avoids running to BLP issues. I reckon it is certainly not what someone highly familiar with Firth's work would consider "complete" but that's not the intention here, just need to create a stub that justifies its own existence. The other draft over at Draft:David Firth (animator) is kind of run over at the moment (I'm troubled by that big table that uses IMDb links) and considering between moving my wikitext over to there, or just create the article straight from what I've drafted. Pinging relevant parties for thoughts: @Martinevans123, Throast, ThadeusOfNazereth, and Hobit: JAYFAX (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC) (update) adding @RexSueciae: who expressed interest in cleaning up the draft, and @Fenestre: whose edits would be overwritten by this. JAYFAX (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

No objections to you swapping it into the current Draft. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think starting with a clean slate would do the article good, and I like what you've written so far. It would also make editors' job a lot easier judging a person's notability if the article is short and to the point. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 and ReneeWrites: Thanks for your input, I've gone ahead and swapped it over the the AfC draft and submitted. JAYFAX (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little late to the conversation, but that draft looks good to me. I'd even go ahead and put it in article space, let editors take it on. Trial by fire. Of course, that might be a little bold. And I might put a stub template on it, although that's not strictly necessary. Anyways, well done. RexSueciae (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

JAYFAX, personally, I'm very satisfied with the draft as it stands now. Thankful for the productive and civil discussion, and glad we've finally reached an outcome that everybody seems to be happy with. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The Table seems to have been perturbing for some. The repeated claim was that Firth is not a notable person. One of the criteria is a body of work and that table did demonstrate that there was a body of work that comes from one person. That is not a claim that the person is magnificent or important but it evidences that they are, in fact, notable. Lack of notability was the original reason for deletion.

The table being 'reference bombed' is an unrealistic criticism since, as a draft it should be clear that the entire table would be significantly pruned or even vanish if the article were to proceed to the mainspace of Wikipedia. The repetitions of IMDB: where else do British creatives make their cultural contributions known? Yes it is a potentially contentious source, but some of the references are to BBC and Channel 4 entries. That gives a range of provenance to the works. Correlating IMDB references from Firth, BBC, and Channel 4 suggests that notability is there to be found.

Both BBC and Channel 4 commission work out of public money. That means a single animation on BBC and Channel 4 has gone through ridiculous amounts of committee 'value for money' vetting. Which, in turn means that Commissions are not just handed out to Creatives on request. An understanding of that, in terms of notability is useful. Hence the Table was simply a useful tool. It might have utility in a future article or it might not. That needs an understanding of British Culture that seems lacking in the process.

Overwriting my edits is not the end of the world. Not actually looking at them first is far sillier. I have confidence that you will do whatever you see fit, in any case. Which is just what happens in open edited documents.

The original article was a mess in terms of strict compliance with the arcana of Wikipedia. That really could have been improved instead of making a deletion that amounts to original research about the notability of a British Creative. It seems odd that a Northern British Creative gets mentioned in publications as far apart as San Franscisco, Canada, and Sweden, and has a reasonable body of video interviews which do speak to notability - but are of no consequence to the Wikipedia process and Wikipedia notability - yet has no article about them on Wikipedia; while, American Animators get three mentions in American commercial press warranting an equally poorly written article. That is an issue for another time and place.

It seems a lot of problems have centred on the lack of understanding of Popular Culture and how someone can be notable in the UK and not the US. That has resulted in a poor process that has not actually improved anything. I am happy to have my edits overwritten, hopefully in a constructive and productive way that actually builds a much better edit of the article. Which I trust is the outcome being sought.

I personally suppose David Firth is actually notable. He contributes to Northern Culture in way that might well seem vapid or insubstantial outside of the North. Apart from that I am not a great fan. I do not find lots of things on Wikipedia notable and their inclusion is simply because they are the hobby horse of an Editor who has put in sufficient work to establish that. Which may seem unkind. It is the basis for a lot of good editing. Someone championed the deletion of an Animator and someone could champion the inclusion of that Animator. Neither champion is me. The table was not some reference bombing idiocy but it has helped to provide indications of both a body of work and of notability.

Firth was featured in the 2017 Glasgow Film Festival, in the brochure, being described as "One of the UK's most significant independent animators".

https://issuu.com/glasgowfilmtheatre/docs/gff_brochure_2017_digital_final/58

This was a consequence of finding out that Cream had a first showing at the Glasgow Film Festival 2017 (Sponsored by National Lottery and British Film Institute). Which does actually suggest notability from an independent source. the BFI and National Lottery are, again, Public Money and not wont to throw around idle praise.

Yes, the table might well be an abomination but a useful one. An objective of deleting it systematical was the intent. Starting with a clean slate is not really a problem but please try to avoid slinging out the baby with the bathwater. Fenestre (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree that IMDb can be very useful "bathwater" in suggesting leads to search for. You make some very valid points above about how notability can be assessed in terms of public funding. I'm sure you will collaborate in improving the new article for Firth. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn-ish. Keep the disambiguation page, but David Firth is notable enough as a person outside of his work on Salad Fingers to warrant a page at David Firth (animator), even if Salad Fingers is by far and away his most famous work. I'm annoyed at what's happening on the draft page, though, it's been reference bombed badly and the page is in a far worse state now than it was prior to deletion. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  So it looks like any restoration of the deleted article is not going to happen? However poor you think the new draft is, those who have already contributed to it will not want their efforts to be wasted. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  The article itself is perfectly salvageable, and I honestly didn't think the article on the main page prior to being moved/deleted was that bad either. I think notability could be argued without making significant changes to it. It's mainly the table on the draft page that needs to go (it basically contains the contents of Firth's IMDb profile with no regard for relevance/notability), but I don't feel comfortable removing it myself. I've already removed it once, and I gave an incorrect reason for doing so (the deletion was justified, but the argument wasn't). I also don't want to come across like I'm bullying this one guy who's obviously well-intentioned but is putting a lot of effort into something that's to the overall detriment of the page. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, while IMDb is acceptable for use as an External link, it is not considered WP:RS for use in the article main body. The table might be still be a good idea if any better source(s) could be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  The fundamental argument for the original deletion was that Firth effectively produced Salad Fingers and no other of significance. In that case the Table would have had one line and notability would devolve to finding three acceptable citations for Salad Fingers' existence. Which would leave the situation as it is. You might not consider IMDB to be a reliable source, it has been used elsewhere as though it is. Place that remark aside. The IMDB listings - plural - pointed to Firth, BBC, Channel 4, and others which clearly points towards other more Wikipedia Reliable Source citations that should be findable. The purpose of the Table is purely to highlight the body of work which is the entire claim to notability for any writer, filmmaker or animator.

  As a consequence of that Table, by examining IMDB listings and working outwards, some useful links were discovered such as Firth being interviewed by Alan Yentob of the BBC and for the work Umbilical World and Firth being invited to the Glasgow Film Festival. Where the Organisers described Firth as One of the UK's most significant independent animators in the Festival Brochure and a new film was premiered. (http://issuu.com/glasgowfilmtheatre/docs/gff_brochure_2017_digital_final/58). That suggests that the British Film Institute and the National Lottery think Firth might be notable. It might well be a really tedious way of proceeding. Deleting the table rapidly after it was inserted actively prevents discovery of notability and any rational progress to a consensus on notability. Which was the only thing deemed to be at issue. In that respect being productive rather than aesthetic directly addressed the issue of relevance and notability: the original underpinning rationale for deletion.

  Did the Table look awful: absolutely. Could the Table be improved: hugely. Would the article be better off without it: visually yes; there may be an argument that a list of film works suits tabular presentation but that does not impinge on the reason the article was where it was. It was in that place because it was deleted and someone said it should not be.

  To return to the IMDB remark. I have created tables in sandboxes for other Creatives and come out with the conclusion that I do not think they are notable in any way: their output is apparently work for hire that lacks personal creative agency and their Wikipedia presence is little more than personal brand marketing. I am not going to name them or to ask for their deletion because, largely, some other has determined what their notability is even if it is utterly unclear to me. Wikipedia rules allow for that. Wikipedia rules also allow for an over literal interpretation of Wikipedia rules when it intersects with material that is unclear, unpleasant, or simply from somewhere else. That kind of interpretation leads to long term nonsense when it comes to cultural subjects.

  In short: it is a table, it can be tolerated for a few day as it gets whittled down. It is not the end of the world if it stays or goes. It is not bullying to delete it but it is a tad counterproductive. Fenestre (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  IMDb links can be useful as a way of confirming who took what part in a production, but an IMDb link does not by itself indicate notability. It mostly just proves something exists. IMDb and Wikipedia are two different databases that enforce different rules and standards, and serve different functions. Just because something's on IMDb doesn't mean it automatically belongs here, too.

  The notable works Firth had created or contributed to had already been mentioned in the article. So all the table did was add a mix of duplicate notable data and filler, and taking a lot of space up in the process. It just made it harder to see the forest for the trees.

  The word "reference bombing" has been mentioned a number of times, and I think it's a good idea to read the article on that (as well as the main article on overciting) before moving forward so we don't make the same mistakes with the new article. The intro reads this:

  "A common form of citation overkill is loading up an article with sources without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. This may boost the number of footnotes and create a superficial appearance of notability, which can obscure a lack of substantive, reliable, and relevant information. This phenomenon is especially common in articles about people or organizations (including companies), given that they generally have to satisfy conditional notability standards based on achievement and sourceability, rather than a mere verification of existence."

  The third item on the list in particular is relevant here:

  "Citations to work that the article's subject produced – A series of citations that Gish gallop their way through a rapid-fire list of content that doesn't really help to establish notability at all. For example, an article about a journalist might try to document every individual piece of work they ever produced for their employer, often citing that work's existence to itself; an article about a city councillor might try to document and source their position for or against every individual bylaw or ordinance that came up for council debate at all, regardless of whether or not the person actually played a prominent role in getting that motion passed or defeated; an article about an entertainer or pundit might try to list and source every individual appearance they might have made in media, all the way down to local morning talk shows and interviews on individual radio stations; an article about a musician might try to reference the existence of their music to online music stores or streaming platforms, such as iTunes, YouTube or Spotify, instead of to any evidence of media coverage."

  There are a lot of small articles and stubs on Wikipedia, because an article doesn't need to be long to prove notability. And a handful of good sources do that better than over a hundred questionable ones. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comments at this time:
  • I see statements to Endorse but Restore. If that means to restore the deleted article to the history, it is already there. After the fourth AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Firth (4th nomination) . the result was Redirect to Salad Fingers, and User:Sandstein correctly cut the article down to a redirect. User:JohnThorne then converted the redirect into a disambiguation page, also in my opinion correctly. So the deleted article is still there the history of the disambiguation page, David Firth.
  • I reviewed Draft:David Firth. In the course of the review I moved/renamed it to Draft:David Firth (animator). I compared the draft against the previous article (since it was still in the history), and saw little difference. I declined it because I saw less than a 50% chance that it would, if accepted, survive a fifth AFD, which would resemble the fourth AFD. One of the basic instructions for AFC reviewers is to accept if there is more than a 50% chance, estimated subjectively, that the draft will survive AFD.
  • When I declined the draft, I asked that any resubmitter not simply add more references, because at 44 references it had already been reference-bombed. So, since there is a myth, held both by some new good-faith editors and some bad-faith editors, that more references are usually the key to acceptance or retention, another 62 references have been added to bring the total to 106.
  • When I declined the draft, I asked that any resubmission either specify how the new draft differs from the deleted article, or request Deletion Review. Improving the draft would still be a good idea. Adding more references will be an exercise in formatting the references (either manually or with a tool).
  • User:Martinevans123, User:Hobit, User:Joe Roe, User:Cunard If I understand the requests to Restore, the deleted article is already in the history of the disambiguation page. Try https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Firth&oldid=1078654987

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the original article is still there. But it looks like you'd prefer to see the new draft improved instead. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how much free time I'll have, but once this discussion is closed, I might have a try at cleaning up the article. Remove questionable sources, add reliable ones, and call it a day. It doesn't matter much to me whether we revise a version of the original, pare down the draft on file, or start entirely from scratch, as long as the result is serviceable. It does feel an entirely manageable task. Anyways, I'm curious to see what sort of consensus develops in this discussion. RexSueciae (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The differences between the current draft and the deleted article are, in my opinion, not substantial, except for the well-meaning but misguided reference-bombing. I think that it makes little difference whether the improvement is to the deleted article or the draft. I think that improvement is both possible and desirable. (I do not intend to review the draft again). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Relist. WP:DEL-REASON#8, the policy-based rationale for deletion of non-notable articles, states that Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth) (internal links omitted) can be deleted. This wording is very clearly reflected in WP:N, whose first criterion requires that an article meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). Simply put, WP:NBIO is one such guideline, and while lots of people focused on how to apply WP:GNG (which was unclear), there was also an argument by 2601:204:D981:8130:B595:613D:C7D8:5E46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that was explicitly made that the individual satisfied WP:NARTIST#3. Since NARTIST is part of WP:NBIO, and the article subject is certainly about a person, the relevant notability guideline is the notability guideline for people. In other words, the arguments for deletion that might have had some support in the WP:Deletion policy were largely refuted by the Sacramento IP.
  Among the remaining editor, they advocated for a reverse merge (Salad Fingers into David Firth). I'm not entirely convinced of the policy-based rationale that the editor is given, but I think that further discussion on this AfD would be fruitful in allowing the community to ascertain a consensus. This is a scenario where there was relatively little participation, arguments from !voters weren't really all that great from a policy perspectie, and additional editors might help in coming to a consensus. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

— Mhawk10 (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse Agree with above that the disscusion wasn't great but the closer appeared to come to the right decision on the matter. Keep would have been wrong considering nobody liked the article itself but rather what the article was talking about. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 21:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Any view on a new article, now that new WP:RS sources have some to light? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Ii should probably be looked at through AFC considering the sorry state of the article before this all happened. It needed a peer review anyway. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  A well-supported peer review might have short-circuited this whole cycle. But, somewhat ironically, the reaction of Firth himself to the deletion, has in turn generated a lot of useful interest and suggestions. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Hey, it's PantheonRadiance replying here once again. I'm not officially voting on this discussion but I felt that I needed to leave my two cents about David Firth and the AfD discussion.

TL;DR - Firth should've been kept + AfD/notability response, hope draft gets accepted.

First, I initially didn't care about the outcome of the discussion because I wasn't personally invested with him or any of his works. Looking back at the discussion however, it should've never been merged/deleted in the first place, and honestly if I were to have voted again, I would've argued that the article should've been a Weak Keep. There were a bunch of other sources I actually found about Firth's other work, but because of Throast's rhetoric of notability "not being inherited," I only picked ones that explicitly described Firth as a person. Looking at the new sources here, had they been proposed in the AfD I would've voted a Keep. Speaking of the AfD, I need to address this. Second, I know the discussion was already filled with overly long responses, and I certainly didn't help with that.* However, that AfD clearly should've been relisted for one more week. I was genuinely surprised that this wasn't the case. Ignoring the depth of discussion, it was basically a drawn out battleground between Throast and Martinevans with me and Lamona acting as spectators. I felt like other editors should've weighed in a bit more to discuss the arguments proposed in a more concise manner. Finally, my rationale for my response came from a larger issue I personally interpreted and saw as a twisted "double standard" surrounding notability on Wikipedia, especially with e-celebs and YouTubers. Although it may not be my place to express my thoughts about it, seeing as how this discussion actually got some mainstream attention I feel I need to address it. While "what about X?" is considered a fallacy here, I don't see it as entirely invalid; how exactly is basic pattern recognition between articles of similar topics fallacious? If anything, comparisons often help us understand the bigger picture, especially in moments where it seems genuinely unfair that an article about someone gets deleted while others survive AfDs with even weaker sourcing, and WP's policies honestly don't do much to rectify it. As for this case, even with a legit policy like the ARTIST one there still seems to be some sort of double standards. This may be a bit of a stretch, but for example: how is it that game developer Toby Fox gets his own separate article solely for creating the Undertale series, but David Firth, someone who created a web series that demonstrably had a similar impact on internet culture, loses his four times? Why does the "not inherited" argument apply to Firth but not to Fox? One could argue that Undertale had a much larger impact on the world, but does that diminish the significance of Salad Fingers by comparison? Toby has also done other projects that have been significantly covered by the press... and so has Firth as shown in this discussion. So what gives? Is this because people here merely see Firth's influence as only extending to internet culture at large? It just seems like there's some ingrained bias when it comes to anything based on internet culture. And sure, articles about internet personalities are added here all the time. But the ratio of articles kept to articles deleted is abysmally low. At times I honestly feel that some Wikipedia rules were created merely to prevent articles from being created regardless of the impact of their subjects, especially with anything internet-related. Even if memory was so boundless that Wikipedia could hypothetically create and hold an infinite number of articles, Wikipedia would still find some way to delete articles - even with enough sources about them. All I hope for is that someday Wikipedia's policies will become more lenient and understanding with the notability guidelines going forward. More importantly, I do hope David Firth gets his article back soon. BTW Mhawk10 (talk · contribs), I was the one who wrote that long response from an IP.

PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent discussions

28 April 2022

Lenny Castro – Draft moved to mainspace. Anyone who thinks the article shouldn't exist should start a new AfD. Hut 8.5 11:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lenny Castro (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Sources have come to light that supports his inclusion in Wikipedia based on No. 1, 6, 8, 10 of WP:BAND. I have listed around sixteen or so sources on Lenny Castro's talk page, and I can search for more sources if necessary. (Ironically, his inclusion on so many albums makes it hard to search for significant coverage versus just personnel listings, but I've at least collected more sources than the original, deleted page had, judging by the state of Lenny Castro articles on other-language Wikipedias). Unfortunately, this page was SALTED after many people kept recreating it, but I believe that just means that there's at least some sort of audience interested in this musician. He easily meets the bare minimum for WP:GNG. At the very least, his inclusion on several hundreds of albums means that he should not redirect to Toto. Just searching his name on Wikipedia features several hundreds of articles mentioning him. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Hypothetical sources? You haven’t listed them. Write a draft stub and include WP:THREE notability demonstrating sources. SALTED? Have you asked anyone to de-SALT. The protecting admin, or at WP:RfPP? DRV is a review forum, not a desalt forum. It is well used to review an unreasonable refusal to de-salt. A good proposal to de-SALT also will benefit from a draft stub with WP:THREE good sources. Endorse the AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC) @SmokeyJoe I listed the sources on his talk page. Please check them. I feel like it would be better to recover the page and add the sources to them, rather than restarting another draft article. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC) @SmokeyJoe This better?: Draft:Lenny Castro. There are currently 343 links on Wikipedia for Lenny Castro. There's a demand for a page that doesn't redirect to a band he was never signed to. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Mainspace the draft. NB. This gives no protection for the new article, and anyone may AfD it. I would AfD-!vote “keep”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Thank you for your patience. Now we just wait for an admin to move it to the mainspace. (Unless others still endorse the AfD and reject the draft, which I obviously hope doesn't happen.) Why? I Ask (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC) The disadvantage of bringing this to DRV is that it has to wait for the DRV discussion to be closed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Further to WP:WINAB and WP:BB, I have moved Draft:Lenny Castro to Lenny Castro. If anyone now wishes to AFD it, they can; as for this DRV, I think we're done. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 April 2022

HAVEN Helpline – Speedy deletion endorsed. The one other opinion by DGG does not address the reason for the deletion, i.e., that the text is a copyright violation. Sandstein 07:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
HAVEN Helpline (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) each party who created the organization has a block quote, that describes the organization differently. The most that can be said is the deleter should have requested a delete of allowable quotes. #MeToo 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC) So this was a Speedy deletion as a copyright infringement. I'm not clear what you're asserting as an error here--was the text donated via a compatible license? Appropriately cited/fair use quotation? Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse with full leave to re-start an article of substantially original work. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse apart from the one sentence History section the entire article consisted of copyrighted material in block quotes. Quotations from copyrighted sources are allowed here, but they have to be brief and they have to be used to illustrate a point (Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text). Quotation marks aren't a magic bullet which makes copyright problems go away, and you can't just copy loads of material from copyrighted sources and slap quotation marks around it. Removing the quoted material would have left the article as a one sentence stub with no context, so I think deletion was reasonable. If the OP wants that sentence back I'm sure we can oblige. Hut 8.5 07:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Deleting all the quotes would have left an article so short it would have been speedied under A1. Endorse without prejudice to creating a new copyright-compliant article. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC) The only part not quoted is On 1 June 2019, ACTRA and the Directors Guild of Canada jointly launched HAVEN Helpline for members in Canada, with 24-7 support, out-sourced from Morneau Shepell, with additional financial support from AFBS and Telefilm Canada., one wonders if it even qualifies as A7 [no claim of significance]. But yes, basing almost all of your article on text quoted from elsewhere is probably a copyright infringement, and quote marks do not make it OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC) References Draftify Dubious promotional article , in need of major rewriting but not deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC) We cannot draftify copyright violations, and the only line that was not a copyright violation has already been quoted above. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 April 2022

File:Culturehall.JPG and File:Viangchanbank.JPG – Request withdrawn Stifle (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Culturehall.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) File:Viangchanbank.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Files were deleted because of no acceptable FOP in Laos, which is true. However, enwiki can host unfree buildings through {{FoP-USonly}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Why wasn't restoration requested at REFUND? Both of these files were deleted via nominations that received no comments. Courtesy ping for @ShakespeareFan00 -FASTILY 07:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Corrected the links to the deletion discussion. Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion has a giant notice saying that deletions pursuant to deletion discussions can't be appealed there and the deletions weren't marked as "soft deletion", either. So I can see why this was brought here. Anyhow, yes, enwiki only considers US copyrights and freedom of panorama applies here. So restore. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC) With all due respect, that sounds a lot like pointless bureaucracy, which has no business being on Wikipedia. -FASTILY 21:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC) I don't disagree, but the fact of the matter is that under these circumstances people are going to come here rather than at REFUND. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC) JWilz12345, did you attempt to discuss the issue with the closing admin as WP:DELREVD instructs? Cases like these can be resolved a lot more quickly and don't require DRV at all. ✗plicit 15:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC) @Explicit: I might get another note from there saying that such restorations must be made here as the files were deleted through a discussion page, notwithstanding the level of participation in those deletion requests (FFD/PUF), like the case of a Le Corbusier building from France (which I requested to be restored via Deletion Review recently). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC) As per requesting admins, I cannot determine who are still admins today and who are no longer admins, unlike Commons that has the feature to mark admins with "A" designation just beside their usernames (which I activated last year). I cannot tediously check on the deleting admins' current user rights statuses as I had been busy compiling deleted enwiki files at this userspace page of mine for reference. (P.S.: I found such FFDs via [1].) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC) I would imagine the number of people deleting is relatively small, so checking if they are still active (admin or not) and asking doesn't sound like a big tedious process, if they are no longer an admin or not willing to undelete they will tell you, doesn't sound like a massive drain to me, certainly no more effort than a listing at DRV. At a worst reading you are suggesting your time is too valuable, but time of DRV participants isn't. Notwithstanding a solution such as Hobit suggests below is probably the right way to go. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC) @81.100.164.154: you don't know my real life schedules. I am a college student that has experienced some mental stress and breakdown lately, yet I was still able to make this tabular list of deleted files due to no FOP (now mostly via FFD, I will add deleted files via PUF around next month). But I may need to do my usual real life (off-wiki) errands which will slow down my expansion of that tabular list. Be more cautious in your comments, you may not know the real life errands and also off-wiki stress of users like me that conflict with my contribution to that userspace tabular list of mine, which I created in my belief that someday in the future some of no-FOP countries will introduce commercial FOP, and to ease the burden of other users of tediously searching the FFD/PUF deletion requests. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Exactly you have no idea about all the other users here, what priorities, stresses and otherwise they may have, so it's not clear why you'd be adverse to taking a different approach when queried, which in the end may be less burden all around. You didn't answer how it would be more onerous to group and ask the original deleting admins (who may either may say "no" for some reason (in which case DRV is still an option), or I suspect in many cases, if explained you intend to tag the undeletions correctly, will just do it) would be such a huge burden on you compared to listing them one by one on DRV. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC) @JWilz12345: The English Wikipedia does have some user scripts that can make admin identification easier. One example is User:Amorymeltzer/crathighlighter, which highlights admin usernames in blue—you can install it by adding the text {{subst:iusc|User:Amorymeltzer/crathighlighter.js}} to the bottom of your common.js page at User:JWilz12345/common.js. Mz7 (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Thanks Mz7. I'll add it now. Though I am final in my withdrawal of these two requests. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC) @JWilz12345: I hope you reconsider. The IP above was definitely out of line in suggesting that you were considering your time as more valuable than other editors. The reality is that it seems like you've already put in a lot of time and energy into investigating these files, which would improve the encyclopedia if we could restore them. I would hate to have it all go to waste. Mz7 (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Withdraw my request for deletion review/undeletion: after some discouraging inputs by an IP user (which simply isn't true!), I felt the lack of appetite to pursue this deletion review / restoration. Therefore I withdraw my request. No more mood to continue this request for restoration. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:Stade de france.jpg – Request withdrawn Stifle (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Stade de france.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Same reason as above. File was erroneously deleted despite the presence of a consensus since 2012 that unfree buildings can be locally hosted here even at their highest/fullest resolutions through {{FoP-USonly}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Note: I am starting to request such architectural-FOP-related restorations via Deletion Review instead of UNDEL, after my request there to restore one file of a French building by Le Corbusier was denied on the grounds that UNDEL does not apply to pages deleted after a deletion discussion, FFD or PUF for instance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC) No strong opinion on this from me. Courtesy pings for @Salavat & ShakespeareFan00 -FASTILY 07:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC) No issue with restoration from me. Salavat (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Restore, same argument as above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Should we update WP:UNDEL with this specific case (things which clearly fall under {{FoP-USonly}}?) Hobit (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC) @Hobit: I'm in favor of that, plus add another case: if a country finally introduces commercial-applicable FOP (which is suited for Commons), and eligible deleted files can be restored in a quicker manner. But I believe this is not the right forum for such proposals: it might be at enwiki's version of Commons:Village pump or other forum for proposals. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC) I agree it's not the right place for the discussion. I just want to see if the notion has support here. Hobit (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC) @Hobit: I now started this proposal at WP:Village pump (proposals). Hope I went in the right forum. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Withdraw my request for deletion review/undeletion: after some discouraging inputs by an IP user (which simply isn't true!), I felt the lack of appetite to pursue this deletion review / restoration. So I withdraw my request. No more mood to continue this request for restoration. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 April 2022

Jeff Campbell (footballer) – Re-closed. Opinions are divided: a majority would endorse this non-admin closure, but there is no consensus. In my view, this is a clear case of a WP:BADNAC, as the AfD raises complicated and contentious questions of how to apply inclusion guidelines, and needs an assessment of the arguments rather than mere headcounting, but the closer left no rationale. As per WP:NACD, I'm therefore reopening and re-closing the AfD on my own authority as an administrator. This new closure can of course be challenged again at DRV. Sandstein 15:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jeff Campbell (footballer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Out of process early closure after only 2 days. Would probably have been closed as keep regardless due to the sheer amount of votes, but the sourcing was still being discussed after the last relist, and the closer's recent record doesn't inspire confidence that his snow keep was the best decision. This should be allowed to run its course normally. Avilich (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist as the discussion since the last relist was not moving towards a consensus, but instead reiterating the prior disagreements. Best to let the process play out. XOR'easter (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Obviously overturn and relist — have no idea what the closer could have been thinking. Discussion was ongoing, and at least one participant (me) was waiting for more thorough discussion of sources before !voting. JBL (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse Pointless to overturn, it's a keep anyway. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist because the relist was only one day prior to the close, and because consensus at that point was that there was 1 GNG source ([2]) but not 2, and GNG requires multiple sources (so, at least 2). Thus, the outcome (if applying WP:NOTAVOTE) was not clear at the time of the close, and !votes were still coming in. It should have been allowed to run longer to see if consensus formed. Levivich 15:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Technically this should be Overturn and Relist, but since they're obviously notable anyway, that seems to be pointless, so Endorse. We don't need to waste anyone else's time. Black Kite (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC) If it's obviously notable then ar1gue it in the AfD once it's reopened, not here. Avilich (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Well that would a bit difficult unless I had the ability to time travel, since the AfD is closed. Together with that and your "dumb closing statement" comment from below, perhaps you need to think about WP:CIVIL, because you're giving the impression of someone who is being unnecessarily unpleasant. Black Kite (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC) And that was an edit above to add "once it's reopened", with a edit summary of "duh" [3]. Excellent work. Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Relisting would just be a waste of time, the consensus to keep was clear. Endorse. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse clear consensus in that AFD that WP:GNG was met. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 16:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse - clear consensus, and also the AFD was open for 9 days, not the 2 that the OP claims. It was only re-listed for 2, but that is not the same, and also does not matter when consensus was so clear. GiantSnowman 16:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse - I'm with Black Kite on this one. There's no way a non-admin should have been overriden User:Fenix down's relist 48-hours later without much new happening. At the same time, I can't understand why Fenix had relisted this after dozens of references, some meeting GNG, had been added to the artice before they relisted it, and was already discussing that with them on his talk page. I'd have brought the relist here or an appropriate forum, except that seemed POINTy, and the situation would resolve itself within a week. There's no point restarting an almost snowing keep on a significantly improved article that even User:Ficaia, who nominated it, had tried to withdraw 48 hours after it's nomination. Nfitz (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist as it had been relisted only couple of days prior, discussion was ongoing and it looks like there was only real consensus of 1 GNG source. Whatever the outcome will be, I feel it would be best to let the process play out and close this properly. Alvaldi (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Comment - Perhaps best, that an administrator had closed the AFD. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse. The article was listed on AFD for 9 days, not 2. The relist rules clearly state that a relisted AFD may be closed as soon as consensus is clear, without the need to wait for a further 7 days. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse. No prospect of consensus to delete. Poor AfD nomination. Pointless comment-free relist. If you think it should be deleted, see advice at WP:RENOM. If you think the discussion was becoming productive, continue on the article talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist. The relist should have been observed, so this close was out of process. Additionally, controversial closes, such as ones where the closer must actually weigh !votes rather than count them, should absolutely not be performed by non-administrators. I also share JayBeeEll's concern that the majority of keeps were entirely ignorant of the new (and old) NSPORT guidelines and should have been disregarded. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Over 2 dozen references were added to the article, User:JoelleJay, after JBL first asked that; even JBL admits that one of them is good, meeting the minimum requirements of WP:SPORTCRIT (there's been no indication he's assessed all of them). And he's chosen to ignore Gale A84518769 from 2001, which also meets GNG. What's your issue with that reference? Nfitz (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC) That's like a 300-word article published in The Advertiser (Adelaide) about a signing. It's even categorized by Gale as a "brief article". Not in-depth and thus not WP:SIGCOV. I've never understood how editors will point to something that short, that local, and that routine, and call it a GNG source. But, thank you for being the first person to point to a specific second source. Still, I think if that's the second-best source (and it is), then this subject doesn't meet GNG. Oh, and of the 346 words of that article, only 156 words are actually about Campbell, because half that article is about someone else. [4] Here is literally everything that article says about Campbell: City Force has made its first signing for the new season - 21-year-old New Zealand international Jeff Campbell. The highly-regarded midfielder from the Kingz soon should be followed with two more signings which coach Zoran Matic is confident will again make the Force a top-six finalist. "When we played the Kingz last season he (Campbell) gave us more problems than anyone else," Matic said. "We targeted him from the start and it's pleasing to know he's now an Adelaide City player. He will give us more steel in the midfield." Campbell has made 10 appearances with NZ but missed the World Cup qualifiers against Australia through injury. He also has represented NZ at under-20 and under-23 level. Campbell last season played in a wide position but preferred central midfield. "This is a good move for me because I feel playing in Australia will help my development," Campbell said. He is expected to arrive in Adelaide next month. The thing is, a closer should look at that, and say "this is not SIGCOV, no matter how many editors say it is, because WP:NOTAVOTE". And then the closer should say, "There are not two GNG sources here, no matter how many editors say there are, because WP:NOTAVOTE." Then the closer should close this as delete (or draftify, which is what I'd have !voted if I had voted). I remember this from the days when I regularly participated in FOOTY AFDs. People would put forward a paragraph and claim it's SIGCOV and meets GNG. I guess that hasn't changed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich 16:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC) And only 93 words are independent -- the quotes from the coach must be ignored since he is not independent of Campbell. Routine signing cruft. JoelleJay (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC) The thing is, a closer should look at that, and say "this is not SIGCOV, no matter how many editors say it is, because WP:NOTAVOTE". And then the closer should say, "There are not two GNG sources here, no matter how many editors say there are, because WP:NOTAVOTE." Then the closer should close this as delete... That is the very definition of WP:SUPERVOTE. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Dumping a bunch of trivial mentions/prosifying stats is the definition of WP:NOAMOUNT and WP:REFBOMB. SPORTCRIT presumes notability only if there are multiple SIGCOV sources. The single SIGCOV source requirement is for preventing automatic deletion of articles that are not under AfD discussion, it does not obviate the ultimate requirement of meeting GNG. And as Levivich said, that Gale article is clearly routine signing hype and does not contribute to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist- so that the actual requirements based on what the notability guidelines actually say can be adequately assessed. Reyk YO! 04:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse all the issues about WP:GNG/SIGCOV had been addressed with the article improved by that point. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse It's clearly a keep, both in discussion and in looking at the current version of the article, and while procedurally incorrect, consensus was clear and relisting won't delete this article. SportingFlyer T·C 15:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse. Consensus seems clear and I don't believe relisting would change anything. Calidum 16:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse It's not clear that the first relist was necessary or proper. Per WP:RELIST "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days." Thus, since consensus was clear before the relist, no further input was necessary for any editor to close the AfD. However, two additional keeps were logged in the two days of relisting, so it was abundantly clear that the outcome was not trending towards no consensus, let alone deletion. NAC was specifically proper for this reason. Avilich's arguing to reopen a decision based on non-existent policy, when he acknowledges that the appeal here is moot, is most consistent with WP:BURO WP:BATTLE behavior and this outcome should be internalized and not be repeated. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC) I said it would probably be closed as keep due to the vote count (as it was), not that it should. But there was no consensus that the sourcing was enough for GNG. Avilich (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Admins don't have the authority to overturn numerical preponderance because that outcome is not compliant with a guideline, which notability is. Read WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS and WP:NHC: each references policy, not guidelines, and the former enumerates core policies and does not include notability anywhere in there. I don't know where people get the idea closers can discount !votes based on guidelines, since there's simply no policy allowing it: the ability to override by local consensus is what differentiates policy and guideline. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC) I think you overlooked the second last paragraph of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS: Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area. BilledMammal (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Yes, absolutely. Most admins will ignore rationale-free WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE !votes, and by rationale-free I include things like "Has enough sources" or "not enough sources". However, it's far more difficult to determine when you have disagreement about how good those sources are, as then it's not a binary notable/non-notable issue. Black Kite (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist - This one requires a thorough assessment of the arguments and whether or not the sourcing actually meets the requirements, not just a vote count, and is a poor candidate for NAC. I would also hope for a closing statement that explains their reasoning, since we're setting a precedent for edge cases like this. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse Was listed for 9 days, consensus is clear. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Weak Endorse: The AFD was open for 9 days. It was open on the relist for 2 days, and the rule to wait for 7 days does not mean to wait for 7 days after a relist. The closer's statement that there was a consensus to keep is correct. The closer should be cautioned about eager-beaver non-admin closes of AFDs. The admins say that there isn't a significant backlog of AFDs, so that NACs are not essentially, only permitted. Sometimes overly eager NAC closures come to DRV. Usually, the close was correct but the XFD was contentious, and so should not have been closed by NAC. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Weak Endorse Per same reasoning and points described by Robert McClenon in the post just above this one. The discussion and results were problematic, but the close was correct. Any different close would have been a supervote. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse NAC are not to be given any less weight than admin closures, and discussion had been open 9 days, a "consensus keep" closure is clearly within the remit here. --Jayron32 12:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse clear consensus to keep.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist As consensus is based on strength of argument, not votes asserting (falsely) the inherent notability of footballers. AfD is not a vote. The multiple keep votes suggesting automatic notability of footballers should be disregarded as clearly violating community consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mervat Rashwan – Patently inappropriate NAC. We don’t need to wait a week when the consensus is clear and a single admin can overturn Spartaz Humbug! 19:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mervat Rashwan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The no consensus close is based on the premise that "policy is uncertain" on the notability of footballers and any deletion nominations should be postponed until discussion is completed at WP:NFOOTYNEW. While I agree that we should be cautious about deleting articles that could be notable under new guidelines, the presumption of notability has been removed from all NSPORTS SNGs and NFOOTYNEW, if adopted, would only tell us whether the required significant coverage is likely to exist. There's no need to wait until a new guideline is adopted, as it wouldn't change the outcome for an article that has no SIGCOG sources whatsoever. I request that the discussion (which was relisted just yesterday by Fenix down) be reopened, allowed to run for a full week and then closed based on consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 01:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist A strange closing decision. The new notability rules are quite clear and were changed several weeks ago at this point. So the close should be made one way or the other and not be put as "No consensus" as some sort of supervote on "we just don't know". SilverserenC 02:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Speedy overturn Out of process early closure. Dumb closing statement; the policy isn't uncertain, as SPORTCRIT is obviously the applicable guideline. Nonexistent guidelines like NFOOTYNEW have no bearing on present discussions. Avilich (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn. Early closure is for nominations that are withdrawn, speedy kept, speedy deleted, or snowballed - not for no consensus results where the relisting admin stated that would close as delete based on strength of arguments if significant coverage is not found. Further, closure should be based on current guidelines, not hypothetical future guidelines - and these hypothetical future guidelines will not overrule WP:SPORTCRIT #5, which requires articles with no significant coverage be deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Speedy overturn. This was a bizarrely out-of-process close with zero grounding in current P&Gs (or old ones, for that matter). JoelleJay (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Procedural Close - User:Dlthewave started this DRV already aware that the closer (User:力) had self-referred his own recent Football closes to AN (at WP:AN#Football-related AFDs, where this page was already being discussed. This is WP:FORUMSHOPing, and the AN discussion surely takes precedent. Nfitz (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Certainly doesn't. Deletion decisions are reviewed here, not on the AN.—S Marshall T/C 07:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Except that 力 directly said to take the closes to DRV in that AN thread. SilverserenC 07:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Somehow I missed that the AN reference was just about insults, not the close itself; most of the following discussion there has been about the close. My apologies. Nfitz (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn, too controversial for NAC at this point in time.—S Marshall T/C 07:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist. A non-admin over-riding an Admin just isn't on, especially when things are controversial. That said, I'm concerned about User:Fenix down's threat to supervote - which may bring us back here again soon. Nfitz (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 08:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and re-list purely because it should not have been closed the day after re-listing. GiantSnowman 08:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist because, as stated above, the point of relisting is to give more time for a consensus to form, and closing the day after is contrary to that purpose. XOR'easter (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist — obviously. JBL (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist, though I suspect the outcome will end up being the same. Black Kite (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Comment - Perhaps best that an administrator had closed the AFD. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn (revert the close) WP:Supervote and WP:BADNAC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Relist Inexplicable premature close if the outcome is "no consensus". Let the relist(s) play out. Any discussion at WP:NFOOTYNEW is independent, as it is not an accepted guideline at this point.—Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist, per all of the above. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist on procedural grounds - I would have endorsed if there was a week between relisting and the close as I agree with the close. SportingFlyer T·C 15:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Karl-Erik Nilsson – NAC undone Spartaz Humbug! 19:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Karl-Erik Nilsson (footballer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The no consensus close is based on the premise that consensus cannot be reached until discussion at WP:NFOOTYNEW is complete. While I agree that we should be cautious about deleting articles that could be notable under new guidelines, the presumption of notability has been removed from all NSPORTS SNGs and NFOOTYNEW, if adopted, would only tell us whether the required significant coverage is likely to exist. There's no need to wait until a new guideline is adopted, as it wouldn't change the outcome for an article that has no SIGCOG sources whatsoever. I request that the discussion (which was relisted just yesterday by Fenix down) be reopened, allowed to run for a full week and then closed based on consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 01:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist A strange closing decision. The new notability rules are quite clear and were changed several weeks ago at this point. So the close should be made one way or the other and not be put as "No consensus" as some sort of supervote on "we just don't know". SilverserenC 02:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Speedy overturn Out of process early closure. Dumb closing statement. Nonexistent guidelines like NFOOTYNEW have no bearing on present discussions, SPORTCRIT is what matters. Avilich (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn. Early closure is for nominations that are withdrawn, speedy kept, speedy deleted, or snowballed - not for no consensus results where the relisting admin stated that would close as delete based on strength of arguments if significant coverage is not found. Further, closure should be based on current guidelines, not hypothetical future guidelines - and these hypothetical future guidelines will not overrule WP:SPORTCRIT #5, which requires articles with no significant coverage be deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Speedy overturn. As with the other AfD, this was a completely inappropriate close both procedurally and based on P&Gs. JoelleJay (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist. A non-admin over-riding an Admin just isn't on, especially when things are controversial. That said, I'm concerned about User:Fenix down's threat to supervote - which may bring us back here again soon. Nfitz (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn I was the only one who felt a redirect was the best option, I can't honestly see enough evidence online that demonstrates GNG, regardless of the player, playing for the most notable club in Sweden. Govvy (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 08:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and re-list purely because it should not have been closed two days after re-listing. GiantSnowman 08:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist on the grounds that closing the day after a relist, when the two new !votes being a "keep" and a "delete", is just a strange thing to do. XOR'easter (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist — obviously. JBL (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist per the above entry. Black Kite (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Comment - Perhaps it would've been better, if an administrator had closed the AFD. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist per above Hhkohh (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn. Inappropriate close. Supervote. BADNAC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Relist Inexplicable premature close if the outcome is "no consensus". Let the relist(s) play out. Any discussion at WP:NFOOTYNEW is independent, as it is not an accepted guideline at this point.—Bagumba (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn and relist, per all of the above. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn on procedural grounds, though it's probably the correct result in this zeitgeist. SportingFlyer T·C 15:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dream Games – "Delete" closure endorsed. Sandstein 16:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dream Games (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) The article Dream Games was deleted on the 24th of March, 2022 even though there were reliable sources and the latest decision was Keep. The article was added to the Articles_for_deletion/Dream_Games because someone on Wikimedia stated that the article was a company creation. However, this user has never done any edits to this article. This link also shows that the company is a legit one developing mobile games. There are also many articles in many independent sources that passes according to WP:NCORP WP:NCORP like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 H5r2n (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC) Comment: The filer of this DRV placed it in the wrong section with the effect that it was reverted by a maintenance bot. I am restoring it here. Stifle (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue where failures to follow deletion process are handled. It is not a venue to argue or re-argue points about the quality of the article; the time and place for this was the AFD. Stifle (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Comment there is currently a draft for this here Draft:Dream Games. Avilich (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse The articles presented here don't seem like a clear error was made in deleting the article, though I have no problem if someone wants to create a draft if sources were better. There were promotional and NCORP concerns but also delete !voters who didn't think notability was that far off, but the overall deletion appears correct from the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 15:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC) temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 21:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse. Consensus was too delete. Respect that decision, for at least six months. If you really think consensus was wrong, try draftspace and the advice at WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Endorse See both WP:THREE & Articles_for_deletion/Dream_Games. LittleNirvana (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 April 2022

Long Face Jack Manifold (closed)

Long Face Jack Manifold – Opinions differ, but nobody supports restoring the article, so it isn't restored. Sandstein 07:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Long Face Jack Manifold (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) The reasons provided for the deletion of the article do not apply in the slightest. The reasons given were G3 and G10, and the reasons they are invalid are given below. - It is not vandalism, a hoax, or misinformation - It does not disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass Jack Manifold, his supporters, or those close to him - It does not attack any of the aforementioned groups - The article is not unsourced, as claimed in the deletion, as the oldest source of the image online was provided - The image that the article centered around was not meant to mock the man in question, as the image was both taken and posted by someone that personally knows him, with the posting having his go-ahead Tealyt - I agree on reflection that G10 doesn't apply, as I've pretty much said on my talk page. I maintain that G3 just about does, however it is probably borderline and am entirely open to being convinced otherwise. How about this - I can restore the content to your userspace / draftspace for you to work on there? firefly ( t · c ) 11:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn G3/G10 deletion and redelete as clear A7 (non-notable individual). Stifle (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC) Comment: An effort appears to be in progress at Draft:Jack Manifold where this content could, in theory, be placed if it were shown that the individual in question is notable. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC) The individual has a very large social media following and is a member of the Dream SMP, which in my opinion qualifies as being notable. Tealyt (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC) I don't know or care about MineCraft but have no issues with a compliant article being written and added. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Regardless of whether this meets G3 or not, it's clearly not an appropriate article. The subject is a distorted picture of a YouTuber we don't even have an article on and it was referenced exclusively to a couple of Twitter posts. Even if it is restored here it is guaranteed to get deleted one way or another in that state. Hut 8.5 18:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

El Comité 1973

El Comité 1973 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer interpreted as “reasonable argument” to keep the page of a self-published, non-notable digital magazine because some automated Google Book that scraped Wikipedia content mentioned it. The article in question was created by a huge amount of single-purpose accounts that were unmasked by French Wikipedia editors, one of which attempted to impersonate me by copying my userpage content but would immediately fail a checkuser test. It blatantly fails all five criteria in WP:BOOKCRIT, come on. Born2bgratis (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn to delete I don't see a no consensus there - I see a lightly attended AfD with two delete !voters and two keep !voters, one of which makes an incomprehensible argument for keeping and the other makes an argument for keeping that is not only rebutted, but the voter even agreed with the fact they were rebutted. I'd probably be a "weak overturn to delete" due to the low participation but it also appears the argument to delete is fairly strong as the sourcing isn't there (which should have been made in the discussion) and it's been scrubbed from other wikis. SportingFlyer T·C 02:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. The closer fell into error in ascribing value to keep votes which were based on sources that were mirrors/duplicates. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete of the two keep comments one doesn't make any viable points at all and focuses on attacking the nominator, and the other one relied on sources which were Wikipedia mirrors. These aren't strong arguments. Furthermore the nominator's point that "There are no third-party, non-user-generated sources anywhere to be found" was not addressed. WP:V requires that article subjects must have third-party reliable sources, and per WP:DGFA AfD closes have to be consistent with the verifiability policy regardless of the opinions of the participants. Hut 8.5 12:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. The nomination perhaps doesn't lay out the argument the best, and the delete voter likewise, but the keeps are an SPA apparently setup to attack the nominator and the other is rebutted. Their follow on point that the subject may not be related to the problems is a non-argument as it doesn't address sourcing or notability issues at all, and I'm not aware of any criteria which specifies not being involved in fakes leads to inclusion, so how the closer concluded they had some reasonable point seems weird. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• KeepColef recently invited their community to participate with the magazine. The publication is already included in an important enciclopedia in Mexico. Please help to improve the article. Ninadents (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC) — Ninadents (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Endorse - I don't see a consensus to delete. I certainly see that concluding that there was no consensus is a reasonable conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn to delete- One keep argument was verifiably rebutted, the other was a borderline incoherent rant against the character of the nominator that I do not care to reward. Reyk _YO! 23:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• overturn to delete I'm not seeing a valid argument for keeping in the AfD. And I can't find one in the article either. The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is the language barrier. I'd rather be more sure here, but... Hobit (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - I also don't see a consensus to delete. You can read here several academic articles that mention the magazine. The user that originally proposed to delete the article has made vandalism, he is in a crusade to erase anything related with the publication. --Sizesdefoes (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC) — Sizesdefoes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• You're not fooling anybody. —Cryptic 01:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  Correct. Quite obviously the same person who made the inarticulate personal attacks against the nominator in the AfD. Reyk _YO! 07:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I closed this discussion at AfD, so I'm entering no declaration. Upon re-reading it, I agree with the above arguments that the "keep" !votes carry little weight, and I did not examine their evidence closely enough. However, I would point out that of the two !votes to delete, only one (the nominator) engaged with the substance directly; that simply isn't enough for a consensus for deletion, and I stand by the "no consensus" assessment overall. Today, I would likely close as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse The closer did exactly what is expected: evaluated what was before them. The discussion appears a mess and it was relisted twice; I cannot see any other option than no consensus and no prejudice against a speedy renom. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse and relist as a new AfD. The closing admin was within their discretion to close the discussion as "no consensus". Both the "keep" and "delete" arguments did not discuss the sources enough. The "keep" participant Dr.KBAHT began their comment with these two sentences: "The discussion should be focused on the subject, not the users. I see good sources. For example, the 1st one is perfectly valid." The first source in the article was:
  • "El Comité 1973 - Detalle de Instituciones - Enciclopedia de la Literatura en México - FLM - CONACULTA". www.elem.mx. Retrieved 2019-08-15.

    This is an encyclopedia entry about El Comité 1973. The entry provides three paragraphs of coverage about the magazine. From Google Translate:

    The magazine El Comité 1973 is a Mexican, digital and bimonthly magazine produced since July 30, 2012 by the literary group "El Comité", dedicated to dissemination, criticism and literary creation. Its mission is to spread literary texts and visual works of different creators in order to increase the culture of people around the world. As for the year that is part of the name, 1973, it alludes to the date of the death of the poet Pablo Neruda, which, in some way, tries to be a tribute to this Nobel Prize winner, whom Gabriel García Márquez called: "the greatest 20th century poet in any language”."

    According to a translation of es:Enciclopedia de la Literatura en México, "The Encyclopedia of Literature in Mexico (ELEM) is an encyclopedia on Mexican literature edited by the Fundación de las Letras Mexicanas, supported by the Ministry of Culture and the National Institute of Fine Arts and Literature of Mexico."
  I did not see this source addressed by the discussion's "delete" participants, so I am basing my endorsement of the "no consensus" close on this point. The rest of Dr.KBAHT's argument for retention was weak as it was based on sources "probably rephrased using AI".

  I am giving no weight to the "keep" argument from AYSO60, who did not provide any policy-based arguments for retention. The arguments from Born2bgratis and Whiteguru were policy-based but they did not address the first source cited by Dr.KBAHT when Dr.KBAHT wrote, "For example, the 1st one is perfectly valid".

  There was another source in the article that is potentially reliable but that I cannot find online:

  • Guzmán Pérez, Mario (October 3, 2017). ""Buena literatura independiente difunde El Comité 1973"". El Sol de Hidalgo (México). p. Sección Cultura.

    This article was published by es:El Sol de Hidalgo. From Google Translate: "El Sol de Hidalgo is a local newspaper from the city of Pachuca de Soto, in Mexico. It is one of the newspapers with the highest circulation and sales in the city and in the state, one reason is that its cost is low compared to other newspapers. It is owned and a member of the Mexican Editorial Organization, the largest journalistic company in Mexico."

  I support a relist to allow for in-depth discussion of the sources since the AfD under review did not do this. I support relisting as a new AfD since the AfD under review was closed in July 2021.

  Cunard (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• If we weren't totally sure this was an "overturn to delete", the relisting that Cunard suggests should be as a semi-protected AfD.—S Marshall T/C 09:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse. The AfD likely reached the wrong conclusion, but closers are not expected to engage with the arguments and sources presented to such a degree that they are to be able to form their own opinion about who's right (this creates the risk of supervotes). They must only make a prima facie assessment of the arguments so as to be able to discount obviously meritless ones, and prima facie there was no consensus here. If desired, a new AfD can be started. Sandstein 07:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse but immediately relist/reopen - endorse per Sandstein's argument, but no need for us to wait for someone else to nominate when it appears we should indeed be having a different discussion. Should the DRV nom indicate that they will do so, we can just endorse and leave it to them. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

17 April 2022

North Country, Cornwall

North Country, Cornwall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted in 2015 because it was apparently a housing estate without official recognition as a hamlet, village, or town however it is an OS settlement[5] and is even an ONS BUA with its own population data. I'm not sure if being an ONS BUA makes it a legally recognized place per WP:GEOLAND but IMO is is probably at least strong evidence it is. It was later created as a redirect to Redruth its parish but should probably be a separate article. I suggest at least the edit history should be restored. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• It's a "built up area" with a population of less than 1,000. I know of nothing geologically or historically significant about it. What is there to write?—S Marshall T/C 23:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse. Nomination misrepresents the AfD. Topic failed GNG. It couldn’t have been closed any other way. If the reasons for deletion have not been overcome, and you want to try anyway, then use draftspace. You may request a WP:REFUND to draftspace to get started. If you want to get serious, read advice at WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Do not restore history behind the redirect. I am considering RfD-ing the redirect due to the term not being mentioned at the target. Keep the history intact, either behind the deleted article, or in draftspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - This is another DRV request where it is not entirely clear what the appellant is requesting or what the issue is. Are they saying that the closer should have kept the article, or that the editors in the AFD should have given different answers, or that they want the deleted article restored to mainspace, or that they want the deleted article restored to draft space? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Do Nothing because it isn't clear what the appellant is requesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  It's pretty clear that he wants to turn the redirect into an article with the edit history restored underneath.—S Marshall T/C 09:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  I can’t see any evidence that this would be a good idea. He should be sent to draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Restore edit history which seems like a reasonable request, although having actually seen it I don't think it's going to be much use to the OP. The deleted article was two sentences long, apart from a generic citation to "Google Maps" all of the references are talking about a Methodist chapel in that location rather than the housing estate. I'm not convinced that the subject meets GEOLAND, which says that "census tracts are usually not considered notable", but a sparsely attended AfD from 2015 shouldn't get in the way of another creation. Hut 8.5 09:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  The term is not mentioned at the target, and so the redirect should be deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Deleting an otherwise harmless redirect with an edit history which someone thinks would be potentially useful strikes me as counterproductive. Hut 8.5 12:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  It is not a census tract, it is a named population centre. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  You said that you think it passes GEOLAND because the ONS lists it. I think that's a similar situation to what we would have with census tracts - merely being used by an official body for statistical purposes isn't enough to constitute legal recognition. Hut 8.5 12:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  It may pass GEOLAND if being a census settlement makes it "legally recognized". It is not similar to a census tract, a census tract is generally a random area of land as opposed to a named settlement. An example of a census tract is E00095472 with a population of 335 compared with 773 for North Country. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Restore edit history I agree with Hut's analysis. Hobit (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Restore edit history as explained. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Restore edit history per above. There's a chance this would be deleted again at AfD but there's a reasonable chance it could survive, and even though there's not much there to restore, this could easily be adopted again. (I will note that there are signs at the entrance of North Country informing you that's where you are per Google Street View, which I'd take - while obviously not conclusive - as a good sign for GEOLAND.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse. This should not even be a redirect, there is no information on North Country at the target page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Well yes that would be something for RFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Given the AfD in question was for deletion, not redirection, I think that's a determination that can be made while we're here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Take no action. The entirety of the deleted article was: "North Country is a village in Cornwall, England." Crouch, Swale is wasting the community's time by requesting deletion review to restore something as trivial, and I consider this disruptive conduct. Sandstein 07:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
• Restore the article's history under the redirect. Even though the article history contains trivial content as described by Sandstein, the DRV request was reasonable since non-admins like the DRV nominator do not have access to the deleted history so are unable to see what it contained. I support restoring the article history so that it is available to non-admins.

  When there is an alternative to deletion, I always support keeping the article's history accessible to non-admins if there are no BLP violations or copyright violations or anything else that should be publicly inaccessible in the history. The article may contain useful content for a merge or useful sources. The article may have unreliable sources that cannot be cited. But the unreliable sources may have information that helps editors find reliable sources that can be used. Without having to ask an admin to restore to draft, a non-admin who is interested in recreating the article with better sourcing and content can immediately view the prior state of the article to see if anything can be reused.

  North Country, Cornwall currently is a redirect to Redruth, which does not mention North County, Cornwall. This would result in deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion if not addressed. I still support restoration as this concern is surmountable. If it would be undue weight to mention North County, Cornwall, in Redruth, another option is to retarget the redirect to List of United Kingdom locations: Ni-North G, where it is already mentioned.

  Cunard (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Reagrding undue weight its normal to redirect (and mention) other settlements in a parish if they are considered not notable, see Kersey Tye>Kersey, Suffolk for example. In this case it could perhaps be mentioned further down if not in the lead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

14 April 2022

Plus (film) (closed)

Plus (film) – Moot/Withdrawn per consent of filer at User talk page discussion (non-admin closure) Jclemens (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Plus (film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Closed on the basis of no sources. There are multiple reliable reviews here, here, here. The film is as one of those rare sci-fi films in Sandalwood (Kannada cinema). Notable sources here, here and here. Article should be restored. DareshMohan (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Userfied to User:DareshMohan/Plus (film). I can happily restore any deleted article that is not vandalism, libel or copyvio to user or draft space. There's no need to drag this out at DRV. In any case, the AfD in question had nobody requesting anything other than deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:06, 14 April 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