Wikipedia:Deletion review

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Shortcut

WP:DRVPURPOSE

Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

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

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

Shortcut

WP:DELREVD

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

Speedy closes

Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

Active discussions

21 September 2024

20 September 2024

Outline of Florence

Outlines are an acceptable page type, along with navigation templates, indexes, glossaries, lists, portals, and timelines. That includes the Outline of Florence. Its deletion was essentially a personal attack on me, as an extension of the portal deletion war of 2019, and the nomination was not in good faith. Waggers sums it up best in the deletion discussion. The perpetrators of that war eventually turned on each other, and the nominator of the deletion was indefinitely blocked for bad behavior. Another outline that was similarly trolled around that time had its deletion overturned at DRV in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_June_6#c-Sandstein-2019-06-14T16:55:00.000Z-6_June_2019 The main premise of deleting the Outline of Florence was that it was a content fork. However, the term "content fork" is a classification that includes acceptable and unacceptable forms, but the term wasn't used that way. Unfortunately, at the time, some well established page types were missing from that guideline, and the guideline itself was very poorly written and structured. Disclaimer: I updated the guideline about a year ago to reflect the status quo, and recorded the missing de facto standard page types, without opposition by the guideline's watchers (the page is closely monitored). It has had plenty of time to season, and has been tested via application in multiple deletion discussions since. Please take a look. (Here's a before/after diff). Outline of Florence was created to be part of a set and compares favorably with the outlines of other cities in and around Italy, including Outline of Rome, Outline of Vatican City, Outline of Milan, Outline of Naples, Outline of Palermo, Outline of Turin, Outline of Venice, and Outline of San Marino. Please overturn its deletion. Thank you. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 11:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the deletion was a "personal attack", this belongs in AN/I, not DRV. Or rather, belonged, seeing as this drama took place five years ago. The subsequent banning of the AfD nominator does not invalidate the result of the AfD ex post facto. I see nothing improper in how Jo-Jo Eumerus closed it. There was a rough consensus to delete, even if we ignore the nomination itself.

The appellant is arguing on policy basis, so this appeal doesn't qualify under DRVPURPOSE#3. We are presented with a long list of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but unlike, say, Outline of Rome or Outline of Turin, the deleted article contained a grand total of 64 words of prose before the long list of wikilinks, much of which is already covered in Template:Florence landmarks. And by the way, Outline of Turin has received 80 pageviews over the past 30 days, and Outline of Venice - 36. Hardly the useful navigational tool it was purported to be. Of course, the appellant doesn't need our permission to submit a fresh draft to AfC, and I have no objection to REFUNDing to draft or to a new AfD, hopefully without the interpersonal drama. Owen× ☎ 12:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (I voted in the AfD and gave actual reasons why this timeline was bad). The other stuff reason given here is interesting: based on that perfectly valid AfD and looking at e.g. Outline of Venice, I see more reasons to delete that outline based on the AfD, than to restore the Florence one based on the existence of the Venice one. Fram (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Agree with Fram on all counts. Reywas92^Talk 13:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy moot, a five year old AfD isn't going to be overturned. If you want the text to work on a new version, just ask an admin. If someone feels it needs a new AfD once in mainspace (or Venice needs deleted), it can be filed. Star Mississippi 14:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation if it is believed that something is needed fom DRV. WP:NOTDUP applies to outlines. The section I'm linking to fails to mention outlines by name, but the start of the guideline does. Glossaries, indexes and timelines are also not duplicative to whatever, i.e. not redundant. Outlines can be good or bad. Good outlines can become featured outlines and these exist, believe it or not: Category:FL-Class Outlines articles. Florence was a country and a capital of a significant modern era power, and it's just a big topic with a bunch of stuff going on. That should increase the suitability of this outline topic and not lead to a conclusion that an outline with a lot of information is duplicative to the article. I protest this invalid rationale. Ultimately, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. So if there is a perception that it is duplicative, try doing something about it editorially, and see if there's consensus for making the outline more abstracted etc.—Alalch E. 15:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in that AfD, but that was an AfD where the I don't like it's trumped the I like it's. There's no reason to keep it deleted if we have other outlines of other similar pages. SportingFlyer T·C 22:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is not entirely clear whether the appellant is asking to overturn the AFD to No Consensus or Keep, or whether the appellant is asking to recreate an outline in draft form subject to review.
- - This is an unserious appeal that consists of too many insults. The appellant says that they were personally attacked or trolled by this nomination, and claims that the nomination was part of the "portal wars" of 2019. The appellant did not raise any issue about a personal attack within the past five years.
  - To refresh anyone's memory, the appellant started the portal wars by creating thousands of low-quality portals by an automated technique. This prompted a review of both recently created (2018 and 2019) portals and existing portals. Certain types of portals, including those created by automation, have been deprecated.
  - The ArbCom case was inconclusive about portals because, as an ArbCom case, it focused on conduct. The ArbCom case resulted in one administrator desysopped for personal attacks, which was a Super Maria effect. The ArbCom case also resulted in an RFC on portal guidelines which fizzled out. We have no portal guidelines because it was discovered that the long-existing guidelines had never been properly ratified. An RFC to ratify the long-existing guidelines failed, probably because there was and is division and polarization in the community over portals.
  - The original nominator of the AFD was indefinitely blocked for personal attacks (on a now-banned user), not for flawed nominations.
- Endorse the original close as Delete. The closer was correct and the appellant has not established any error.
- Allow Recreation of Draft for review.
Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get this. We can either endorse or overturn the afd - I don't have a strong opinion on that, I don't find outlines at all useful as a reader even compared to the minimal usefulness of categories, but I'm willing to accept that other people do - but I can't imagine a new version of this that wouldn't be a G4. There isn't enough room in the format to make a substantive change. Sure, you can rewrite the three sentences of prose at the start, or use different illustrations, or pick a different subset of articles to link to, but it'll essentially be the same thing we deleted. If we tell the appellant here that we're not going to just undelete the old version like he demands (and I'm using that word advisedly), but we'll let him have it back only if we arbitrarily make him rewrite it for the sake of making him do more work and no other reason, that's a rotten thing to do. —Cryptic 11:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closing admin) I don't buy the claim that the nomination was a personal attack on anyone, there is no evidence for one thing. From what I remember, there was a major dispute back then on whether portals and outlines were actually useful or not, but I don't think that the existence of this dispute automatically invalidates an AfD on an outline page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19 September 2024

Penelope Brudenell, Countess of Cardigan

I am requesting a review because I am dumbfounded by the interpretation of consensus. The article was nominated for deletion because it fails WP:GNG: it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. The Keep !votes argue that "she would almost certainly have more sources if historical sources wrote more about women". Somehow this speculative argument has been found to outweigh the fact that there is, in fact, no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Is it now enough to assert that sources would have existed if the world were a different place? Is this going to apply to content disputes as well? Surtsicna (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - The closure of No Consensus was a valid closure, and the closer provided an adequate closing statement that addresses the appellant's concern. The appellant says that there is insufficient coverage of the subject. The closer acknowledges this argument, and says that her position was notable, and that the argument that her position was notable was made in support of the Keep statements. It is somewhat unusual for a closer to make a closing statement in support of No Consensus, and the closer should be thanked. The appellant appears to be saying that the closer should have discounted the Keep statements. The Keep position was soundly argued based on notability of the position of Lady of the Bedchamber, and the closer relied on this argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How's that soundly? —Alalch E. 21:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, which notability guideline says that holders of notable offices are themselves inherently notable? Such a position is entirely contrary to Wikipedia's notability guideline. It is, in fact, a classic example of inherited notability fallacy. Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. The delete side has successfully argued that the article is not suitable for retention on notability and WP:NOTGENEALOGY grounds and the argument that the courtly function is a notable topic is a red herring and is a question relevant to the article about that court title, not this biography. Some keeps admitted that the sourcing is not there, which means they made an observation consistent with the conclusion that the article should be deleted. They then excused this by saying that in her time the subject wasn't covered much because of systemic bias, but this does not matter as Wikipedia can't fix historic injustices. They did not argue that the article is a suitable encyclopedic entry in spite of a lack of notability, by explaining what its encyclopedic value is. Its encyclopedic value can't be that we're covering non-notable women from 250 years ago to make a point about systemic bias. The only reasonable close would have been to weigh such arguments less favorably than the clear policy-based arguments and to find that there is a rough consensus coming from the policy-based delete advocacy. —Alalch E. 21:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse NOTINHERITED is the wrong argument against the Keeps; NC is a perfectly valid reading of the lack of consensus. NC is valid when the participants degree about policy, just like it is when they disagree about facts or sources. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one used the word "inherit" or linked to WP:NOTINHERITED in the AfD. The deletes did not base their case on an essay. The keeps did not argue that the page makes for an article that is suitable for retention in spite of policy (1. this is a possibility, as the policies aren't perfect; 2. they could have done it and those arguments would not have been discountable). They said that it should be kept because of the 18th and 19th century systemic bias, because the subject had a certain position, and because she appeared in a certain painting. So this isn't a disagreement about a policy. It isn't policy-based arguments vs. relevant policy-questioning arguments. It's policy-based arguments vs. red herrings. —Alalch E. 08:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete This seems like the SNG vs GNG thing all over again. It's clear from the discussion that GNG isn't met, though, especially considering it was well argued by delete !voters and even keep !voters mentioned this, meaning there was consensus GNG wasn't met. SportingFlyer T·C 22:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The Keeps are weak as a group, but the argument that we should have articles on all holders of a highly notable office is basically a WP:NPOL argument and not so unreasonable as to be summarily ignored. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The keeps are aligned with the first bullet point in WP:NPOL, so they are policy-based. See, for instance, these other AfDs, for comparable arguments: [1], [2], [3].TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:TheJoyfulTentmaker, Eluchil404, could you please explain to me which of the two points of WP:NPOL, namely "politicians and judges" and "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", does a lady-in-waiting with no significant coverage meet? Also, and this is entirely on me for not noticing earlier, not even our source for her lady of the bedchamber role can be called reliable source coverage – it is a self-published genealogy website. Surtsicna (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: The first bullet of NPOL essentially says: Politicians who has held state/province–wide offices are presumed notable. It is a very legitimate interpretation of the policy to consider the position held by the subject to be equivalent to state/province-wide politicians, and all of the keep votes included some reasoning along these directions. The two bullet points in the guideline are connected with an OR, not an AND; so if the position is important enough, that by itself is considered sufficient evidence of Wikipedia-notability. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete - The delete side clearly showed that GNG was not met. Sandstein's comment summed this up: Nobody above makes an argument that any given source covers the subject in the depth required by WP:GNG. There are very many AfDs where non policy votes are made, and two of the people endorsing this AfD recently endorsed a close that overturned a clear majority delete on the basis that most of the 17 delete votes were not based in policy, but seem less willing to overturn non policy keep votes (in that case or this one). We are repeatedly reminded that AfD is not a vote, and that it is the arguments that hold sway. But here, even the keep votes understood that the article did not meet GNG but wanted to keep the article because it was, to them, the right thing to do. AfD is already biased to keeping information, because a no consensus close keeps an article. It is not appropriate to leverage that to keep an article that clearly does not meet GNG, just because a number of voters showed up to keep it, without any valid P&G reason. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an AfD participant, I'm involved, but as closer I'd probably have closed this as "delete" because, as I pointed out in the AfD, there were no policy- or guideline-based "keep" opinions. Sandstein 10:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the delete side was probably marginally stronger, however the keep side made reasonable arguments that the article passes an SNG. There was not consensus to delete the article despite it being listed for a month. Frank Anchor 16:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikheil Lomtadze

Hello. Please consider restoring the article. It was deleted twice before. The last time on September 19, the article was removed by quick deletion. It was in draft for a long time and then moved to the main space. The article is written in a neutral tone with authoritative sources. There were no claims to significance in the draft. There were questions regarding the style of presentation. The draft has been corrected. However, after moving to the main space, the article was deleted. 195.49.205.23 (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Previous deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 7#Mikheil Lomtadze. I'm leaning toward simply assuming that the content was sufficiently identical in spite of the stated corrections regarding style.—Alalch E. 10:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned the article of advertising phrases and unnecessary sources. Please look at the latest deleted version of the article. It was moved from the draft. 195.49.205.23 (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and speedy close. Both AfDs, the previous DRV, and the subsequent G4 were all correct. Someone seems to be paying good money to revive this self-aggrandizing curriculum vitae, and our goal should be to minimize the time wasted by other editors re-reviewing this. Consider adding to WP:DEEPER if this comes back here again. Owen× ☎ 10:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are very categorical. The person is significant. The last edition of the article was not written in an advertising tone. I submitted a request here to discuss restoring the article. The deleted article was not created bypassing recovery. It was in draft for a long time and then was moved. All comments have been eliminated. Nobody pays any money! There is no monetary interest on my part! 195.49.205.23 (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll endorse this too. The text is different, but there are no new relevant, substantive factual changes except his purchase of Wycombe Wanderers F.C. (BBC ref). 20 of 32 refs were present in at least one of the versions deleted at afd, most of the rest aren't WP:SIGCOV, and at least one has the same text as one of the refs in the previous versions (there were 75 of those; I'm not about to read them all). —Cryptic 11:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can cut out even more of the text and make a stub. The person is significant according to Wikipedia criteria. And as the owner of a football club, and as the owner of the largest bank in Kazakhstan. I did not intend to make an advertisement out of this article. I was editing a draft that someone had created over a year ago that had been moved into the main space. 195.49.205.23 (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way you have constructed your DRV nomination makes it impractical to process. You should have made a new draft precisely along the lines of "make a stub" based entirely on the WP:THREE best references so that the draft speaks for itself as evidence that a suitable encyclopedia entry is possible. Lack of certainty among editors that it is possible is literally the thing that causes the article to be repeatedly deleted. Do you want to do that? Please remember, three. —Alalch E. 12:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THREE is as usual good advice, but "make a stub" in this case isn't - there was a new article. The problem is that, whether long (the 2024 and September 2022 deletions) or short (the March 2022 deletion and proposed new stub), there doesn't seem to be anything to say about this person other than that he has a whole lot of money; that he's spent some of it; that he's run a couple redlinked companies; and that there's a bunch of very shallow and similar articles saying all that. —Cryptic 13:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note logs at alternate romanization Mikhail Lomtadze. —Cryptic 13:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 ~~to keep~~. I came across the most recent incarnation of this page during New Page Review and was prepared to G4 it, but as I checked the sources, they did include SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. As a result, I decided to mark it as reviewed. (I also wanted to defer to the judgment of Dr vulpes, who published the article at AfC, which is precisely where a COI editor should be expected to submit content.) This could be is a DRV#3 case, where there's new coverage and new information (principally Lomtadze's acquisition of a football club, which resulted in new SIGCOV meeting the standard (see BBC and Vedomosti). It's also a case of DRV#5, in which the two deletion nominations did not rely on a detailed source analysis. I believe the nominations were made in good faith (there is clearly COI/UPE going on) but the nomination statements did not show evidence of a WP:BEFORE search, and neither the (very poorly argued) "keep" !votes nor the (good faith) "delete" !votes did any detailed source evaluation. Instead, the discussion focused more on Lomtadze being most greatest businessman in most glorious nation of Kazakhstan! (the keeps) while the deletes focused on the UPE and COI issues plus the low-quality sources present in the article. However, a WP:BEFORE search finds SIGCOV in Forbes (by Forbes staff and thus a reliable source), in Bloomberg News in 2020 and again in November 2022. In Georgian, we have a major in-depth profile on Radio Tavisupleba and coverage in Fortune.ge. I think it's time to revisit these previous discussions and overturn to "keep," while protecting the page to mitigate COI editing. Alternatively, we could bring this to a new AfD where the sources can be re-evaluated, particularly those that have been published since the last AfD in 2022. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 (do nothing else; don't touch the AfD, which is not even contested). Not sufficiently identical (text significantly different and article less refbombed) and too heavily contested for a speedy deletion. AfD said the content was promotional but notability worth exploring, and then an AfC reviewer accepted the submission apparently accepting the new text as not promotional and a new page patroller marked the article as reviewed. So the last incarnation was a non-negligible attempt to fix the promo side at least, while notability is neither here nor there in terms of settledness because not even the AfD was closed as "delete" purely on the grounds of lack of notability, and in this DRV notability is being revisited kind of de novo. G4 isn't the correct tool to address this.—Alalch E. 17:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Resubmit to AfD per the source analysis done by Dclemens1971. I still see no fault in the AfDs or the previous DRV, but there's no need to deprive ourselves of a potentially notable topic just to punish COI editors. A semi-protect for the article would be advisable. Owen× ☎ 17:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Time for a new AfD based on the new version that was just G4ed. Semi Involved as closer of 2022 AfD. While I don't know whether factors have sufficiently changed that Lomtadze is notable and don't have time or interest to dig into the sources, it's worth community discussion and not a speedy. Star Mississippi 17:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Endorse~~ of G4 - I haven't seen either the 1 September 2022 version deleted by Star Mississippi after the second AFD, or the 19 September 2024 version deleted by Sandstein as G4, and we don't have a statement by Sandstein that the 2024 version was substantially the same as the 2022 version, so I will trust that Sandstein concluded that the 2024 version was substantially the same as the 2022 version. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Submission of Draft, subject to review either by administrator, or by reviewer who is given copy of 2022 article, but not recreation of article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting tempundel to review the G4 with more certainty.—Alalch E. 21:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that will have to be a double tempundel of the 2022 and 2024 versions. McClenon mobile (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first afd'd version, the second, and yesterday's G4. The sources in the last that weren't in either if the first two are #1, #3, #7, #8, #16, #17, #18, #20, #21, #22, and #23. Also, sort of, #14, which has text identical to this ref from version 2, which gives me no confidence in any of the other "new" forbes.kz refs. —Cryptic 00:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having not seen the previously deleted versions, these are definitely sufficiently different that the 2024 version should not have been G4'd. Especially since it had gone through AfC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4. Above source analysis shows the version deleted in the AFD and the G4ed version are not sufficiently similar. This can be sent to AFD if desired. Frank Anchor 02:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 and send the offending admin back to CSD G4 school. This applies to sufficiently identical copies, [...] It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version. G4 is not because the same deletion rationale still applies--even if it does unquestionably. G4 is not for repeated UPE recreations, unless they would be G4 eligible even absent the UPE. New AfD? Sure. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 I'm not sure I'd keep this at AfD, but I don't think this qualifies for G4 as it's not close to being identical. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 because the version deleted at the 2024 AFD and the version deleted at the G4 are not substantially the same, so the conditions for G4 were not present. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As speedy deleter, I disagree with the assertion that the new version of the article was not "sufficiently identical" in the sense of G4. It had new sources, yes, but it was was not deleted for lack of sources or non-notability, but for being an exercise in self-promotion. In this respect, the new version and the old are identical, in that they are, as someone above put it, all about "Lomtadze being most greatest businessman in most glorious nation of Kazakhstan". This is apparent from the fact that nothing even remotely critical of the subject appears in an ostensibly neutral article about the third-richest businessman in a notoriously corrupt country. I am perplexed at the effort some here expend to help such people use Wikipedia as a vehicle for self-promotion. But if G4 is too controversial, then I suppose we'll have to go back to AfD. Sandstein 10:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G4 explicitly means sufficiently identical. Either an article is or it isn’t. The presence of multiple new sources means it is not sufficiently identical and should not have been G4ed. The fact it was was not deleted for lack of sources or non-notability, but for being an exercise in self-promotion.. You could possibly make an argument for G11, though I disagree with that as the temp-un deleted version shows it is not exclusively promotion/advertisement. Frank Anchor 16:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17 September 2024

Etienne Uzac

I'm filing this on behalf of the editor User:Shubhamgawali1 who worked to expand the article as they are a bit unsure about DRV. He believes the Afd result shouldn't have been redirected as there was insufficient people taking part in the Afd. Shubhamgawali1 suspects the result was wrong and a bit unfair. I was the one who sent the article to the Afd queue. scope_creep^Talk 10:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi yes thanks for posting it for me, but I have not created the article. It was created in 2012 by some other user. Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist AFD was created about 16 days back, one user participated only, and result was redirected, while it was reverted by me as the article had enough significant coverage, and Etienne is founder of IBT media and also co owned another American news publication, please take look at article it was neutral and already passes general notability and has reliable sources that discusses the Title. Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and partial-block Shubhamgawali1 from that page for persistent edit-warring. Shubhamgawali1 has attempted four times to revert the outcome of the AfD, twice on 15 September alone. And while they repeatedly deny it, their contribution history strongly suggests UPE/COI. Contrary to their statement above, there were two participants in the AfD, not one, and the redirect outcome was correct. Shubhamgawali1 has not presented any new information that would justify a relisting. The only sourcing there is about the fraud conviction, which is already covered in the target of the redirect. In fact, the only thing in the Etienne Uzac article not covered in IBT Media is that Uzac was born in France moved to the US; that's it. If an experienced, non-COI editor offered to expand this, with proper sourcing, I'd be the first to cheer them on. Shubhamgawali1 is not that person. Owen× ☎ 11:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stopped editing after the warning. And I did not write the article after reading about him on Wikipedia I found it useful thats why I reverted it. NO UPE or COI. I am also okay with an experienced editor writes the article. Sources are proper according to history, also article included early career, newsweek, controversy, and thats what has been in the references as I can see in the reverted edit history. I am okay with relist or re-write by an experienced user. Since he already passes guidelines for notability. About the point only sourcing about fraud because thats what got him more popular in the media so details more about that makes the readers have neutral and biographical article reading experience. Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer, no one was arguing in support of retention, and the redirect is a valid ATD as IBT is what Uzac is notable for. He can easily be covered therein, and the history is retained. Thanks, Scope, for helping this editor stop edit warring. Support a p-block from both subjects since Shubhamgawali1 is unable to edit neutrally here. Star Mississippi 12:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect close and explicitly allow re-write of full article, citing the lack of a WP:QUORUM at the AFD. A new re-write would be subject to another AFD of course. My recommendation is that Shubhamgawali1 not do this due to recent edit warring (I would support a p-block of finite duration against this user as well, but DRV is not the venue for that discussion). With only two participants, a second relist was possible but not required. I would consider this the redirect equivalent of a soft delete. Frank Anchor 02:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid close. Another Relist would have been valid but was not required. DRV is not AFD Round 2, but I concur with deletion or redirection and not with keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16 September 2024

14 September 2024

Alinur Velidedeoğlu

The only non-vote opinion comes from the nominator, and that does not address all the sources brought up by @Fram in the prior deletion discussion. The article is about a TV/magazine personality, and so many sources are naturally of that nature. But that does not change the fact that those are reliable, secondary and independent. Just to add one, here is another media coverage about him, clearly demonstrating the notability. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: adding more sources to demonstrate that we have a very clear DRV#3 case here. None of the sources that follow has been considered in the deletion discussion, and all of them are contributing to notability either via the GNG or one of the SNGs such as WP:CREATIVE (some sources may be critical of the subject): [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRV is just about this AFD closure, not the first AFD closure, and nobody in this discussion was arguing for this article to be Kept. I'm sure there were opinions about this article that might not have been expressed during the AFD period. But the closer's obligation is to determine the consensus of the editors who chose to participate in the discussion and given the comments, I don't see how you can argue for a different closure outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Thank you for responding. I have missed this discussion, I would have participated had I seen it when it was open. I was wondering if it would be possible restore the article, or to re-list the nomination? I believe the second deletion nomination statement was not done properly, since it addressed just a small subset of the sources brought up in the prior discussion, and the two delete votes did not elaborate on any of the sources that were brought up there. Thanks in advance. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless an article is just blatant advertising, I never have an issue with an editor writing a draft of an article deleted in an AFD, whether this article is restored to Draft space or you take a fresh start (sometimes that is preferable). What we want on Wikipedia are well-referenced articles on notable subjects and if a better version of this article, with better reliable sources, can be produced, then that should be allowed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse unanimous result. The additional Youtube source presented here by the appellant is just a five minute interview with the subject, and provides nothing in terms of notability. The AfD would have closed the same way had the appellant participated in it. Owen× ☎ 09:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that 5 minute NBC segment is more than just an interview, but regardless, my main point was that Fram's excellent outline in the previous discussion, which includes 3 separate issues from Milliyet's printed archive (which they selected among 179 search hits in the newspaper's archive), and non-interview articles by 2 separate Turkish columnists was not considered. The nominator only addressed the weaker ones among the sources presented. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to draft to add the new sources. The close was fine given the information considered, but now there's a reason to change direction and not spend seven days here. Star Mississippi 12:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if this is an appeal of the closure, which was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation of Draft Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ~~Undelete to draft~~. The listed additional sources aren't super helpful in writing an encyclopedia article, but the existence of the mentioned sources points to even more sources existing, which seems worth investigating, and a draft existing during that time doesn't hurt. Edit: My original comment presumed that there is someone who would work on the draft and find and add new, yet-unmentioned (but somewhat likely to exist) sources. But those expectations weren't realistic. —Alalch E. 11:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. User:TheJoyfulTentmaker is throwing unimpressive sources. Read WP:THREE. Go to draftspace if you find two or three sources that demonstrate Wikipedia-notability. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THREE is an essay, not a guideline. WP:CREATIVE is a guideline, at least sufficient for invoking DRVPURPOSE#3, with these sources, I believe. Also, if someone is a media personality, information about their personal life may become relevant for the encyclopedia. We can't just dismiss those since we don't find them meaningful. Same as we can't dismiss the news that are basically about the movements of a soccer ball, even if some people may think those are not worthy of our time. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can dismiss many sources which are otherwise reliable and useful when determining notability. They aren't being dismissed as sources (we can use them in the article to support certain claims, such as about personal life). They are dismissed as evidence of notability. Say... personal life. Divorce news. How does that help determine that the individual is a notable creative professional? Would we not want sources about their creative life, not personal life? Such weak sources only point to a potential for real evidence of notability to exist, but they don't prove notability in themselves. After Fram's comment, such better sources could have found and added to the article, or mentioned in the second AfD. They weren't, and that's why the article was deleted. And it should stay deleted until someone finally digs up two-to-WP:THREE pieces of real and final evidence of eligibility for inclusion ("notability" ... unfortunate term; I mean obviously the subject is somewhat famous but that isn't it). —Alalch E. 08:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respect this perspective, however I have to say it is not P&G compliant. a) Because of WP:NEXIST, it is totally irrelevant whether the sources pointed out by Fram, some of which happen to be offline, were added to the article or not. We have no deadline on Wikipedia. b) Personal life vs. creative life distinction is irrelevant in terms of the guidelines, as long as we have a significant coverage. It is a common fallacy to consider a piece covering their personal life in detail to be non-significant, because these are considered "trivial" matters. Someone can be notable just because their personal life is of broader public interest. c) Regarding the change of vote above: what happens to the draft after it is restored is also irrelevant for the purposes of deletion review. If it is prematurely moved to the main space, another AfD can be started. If the draft is left idle, it will be deleted in 6 months. But those are out of scope. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I was mainly commenting from the NEXIST perspective. I was not primarily stating that the sources from which notability can be determined need to edited in but that they need to be identified. The sources that have been identified up to this point are only circumstantial evidence of notability, pointers to notability, but are not evidence of notability. For a WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 undeletion, DRV sould be able to say that "editors formed a consensus to delete, but they lacked knowledge of these important facts, and it's reasonable to asume that their decision, as reasonable AfD participants, would have been different if they hadn't". Editors maybe lacked knowledge of the sources brought up by Fram (maybe not) but it isn't reasonable to assume that their decision would have been different, as notability can't be determined from said sources. The suggestion to add the (yet-unidentified) sources to a hypothetical draft before mainspacing is aligned with the purpose of undeletion to draft: make the content speak for itself so that volunteer time does not need to be spent on an unnecessary and possibly confused discussion. I believed that it could be okay in this case to undelete to draft prior to NEXIST as it seems likely that more and better sources can be found. And only when they are found to mainspace; adding them to the page was peripheral concern. But that is prone to being subverted by moving to mainspace without identifying the sources needed for notability, so I changed my mind. I am not opposed to undeleting straight to mainspace given a credible NEXIST claim. —Alalch E. 19:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E. Point well taken. But if you don't have a strong objection to undeletion to draft, as you first proposed, I kindly ask an admin to close this early so I can start improving the draft. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please find one normal WP:SIGCOV source that is not stuff like "he said this and another guy made these ten tweets", "he shared these photos on instragram", "genious advertiser and his ingenious divorce", and "he invented something but we don't know what; let's hope it's something useful". —Alalch E. 01:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:TheJoyfulTentmaker. WP:THREE is an essay yes. This is not about wikilawyering, but fairly simple advice. Read the essay. Ask me on my talk page if there’s something in it you don’t understand.
It’s fairly obvious to the rest of us that you adhere to some false beliefs. If you’re not interested in advice, then maybe Wikipedia is not for you.
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Fram’s first three sources and am unimpressed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe To get back to the actual discussion here: do you have any objection to having this article restored to draft? If not, could an admin close this early? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. If you respect the AfD, then it is quite ok to have it undeleted to draftspace. Do not move it back to mainspace yourself for at least, no matter how fixed you think it is, but instead submit it through AfC. Read and follow the advice at WP:THREE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete close and restore as draft. TheJoyfulTentmaker appears interested in improving the deleted version and there may or may not be additional SIGCOV. AFC (not DRV) is the place to evaluate these sources. Worst case, the draft never goes anywhere and is abandoned and G13ed, which is not a big deal at all. Frank Anchor 02:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AfD but restore to draft - I agree completely with Frank Anchor here. SportingFlyer T·C 22:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent discussions

13 September 2024

Global Credit Data

Incorrect interpretation of consensus Hentheden (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn~~ In the closing decision, the admin OwenX suggested that there was a "rough P&G consensus to delete". The discussion reflects rather a lack of consensus, the result of which should have been to keep per WP:NOCON. More recently, the organisation has received further coverage in government sources, being discussed as an authoritative source in a Bank of England policy document. Hentheden (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck duplicate 'overturn' - by convention, the applicant does not get a bolded (second) !vote. Daniel (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved): The keep !votes were not based on policies or guidelines. There was no identification of WP:SIRS, which is required by NCORP, and many of the keep !votes amounted to WP:IKNOWIT and that its notability should be inherited from its members and the fact that prominent organizations use their research. Several keep !votes were bare "meets GNG" and did not engage with Oaktree b's source analysis. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse (uninvolved): I could see discounting four or five of the seven "keep" !votes, but two (Eastmain's and Malinaccier's) were based either on sources they added to the article (I can't see what Eastmain added) or on an assessment, however brief, of relevant sources, not on mere assertions. That said, there were four stronger "deletes" (plus a weak nomination statement) against two reasonably strong "keeps," and that's a rough consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Eastmain added 1 2 3 4 all to the first sentence (same numbering as in Oaktree b's comment at afd, and they also mentioned #2); and 5 and a second (third, if you count #5) copy of 6 to External Links. —Cryptic 18:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The arguments to delete were just better. The deletion was strongly trending delete before the second and third relist, and after the third relist an overview of the sources was given, asserting that they are not of sufficient quality to support an article about an organization. Instead of meaningfully countering that, it was then claimed that the subject is not a company but an organization and that it has dealings with the worlds biggest banks etc., all of which is discountable argumentation.—Alalch E. 00:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse - The question is not whether each of the reviewers at DRV agrees with the weighting by the closer, but whether the weighting by the closer, and discounting of Keep !votes, was a valid judgment by the closer. It was, but just barely. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment anyone know where this discussion was canvassed? Star Mississippi 12:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're probably dealing with a UPE and a couple of socks; check the contribution history. I just opened an SPI. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse DRV is not round 2 of AFD. It is an opportunity to determine whether the closer interpreted consensus correctly. I think the closer did a good job explaining why the keep comments were largely not based on policy. No one really addressed the comments by HighKing and Oaktree about the quality and independence of the existing sources, or that coverage about a product does not equate to coverage of the company. --Enos733 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Properly deleted, although pointing to WP:CORP upfront may have helped dissuade the weak WP:MEAT efforts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Closer interpreted consensus clearly and correctly. Delete !votes cited policy more effectively than did the keeps.

P.S. The DRV request is flimsy at best. Those requesting review need to make their cases in order to keep from wasting so many people's time and effort, starting with their own. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apply Halite and related minerals after closure of DRV. It is likely that the article will otherwise be recreated by these SPAs. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Philthebanker, one of the participants in the collapsed part 1 section, just admitted he and others were canvassed here off-wiki by the appellant. Another voter was confirmed to be a sockpuppet. Not that whoever ends up closing this needed this proof to discard those votes, but all this is to say that I support Robert McClenon's call to SALT this page, as we're dealing with a very determined group of COI/SPAs. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It hasn't been recreated even once yet. If they're going to recreate, and this title is protected, they'll game the name and we probably won't find it. If it's not, they'll do it here, we'll yawn and G4 it, and they might get discouraged by the wasted effort. I don't agree with everything in WP:Salting is usually a bad idea, but it's worth a read (or reread). —Cryptic 13:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11 September 2024

Koi Mil Gaya 3

These rds were deleted per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 24#Koi Mil Gaya 3, the result was mostly due to non-participation by anyone else beyond the nominator and the non-partipicipation also resulted due to the fact that three very similar rds were incorrectly split into separate noms. The actual discussions took place at the other two: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Krish 1 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Koi Mil Gaya 2 both of which consider the same film series and both of which passed (these discussions also revolved around around our current DRVs Koi... Mil Gaya 3 and Koi Mil Gaya 3), I would have commented at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 24#Koi Mil Gaya 3 and linked to the latter discussions but was unaware of the separate listing for the third film in the series. To only delete redirects for this film from the series would appear unfair in light of these discussions. Please read the discussions and see if these rds should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotitbro (talk • contribs) 15:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse at this time, pending a clearer explanation from the appellant as to what they are asking. These two appeals were confusing before an admin consolidated them, but are still confusing, and I am not sure whether the appellant is even saying that there was an error. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to clarify the nomination. Let me further elaborate, there is a Krrish (film series) which includes three films Koi... Mil Gaya, Krrish and Krrish 3. I had created redirects for alternative names of these: Koi... Mil Gaya 1, Koi... Mil Gaya 2 and Koi... Mil Gaya 3 (also Koi Mil Gaya 3 and the like for punctuation); Krrish 1, Krrish 2 and Krrish 3. All of these were nominated for deletion with the incorrect statement that these aren't used elsewhere or would not be expected by readers both of which were proven to be untrue in the discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Krish 1 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Koi Mil Gaya 2. Koi... Mil Gaya 3 (also Koi Mil Gaya 3) were unfortunately deleted before the discussion for the rest concluded, as it was a separate listing (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 24#Koi Mil Gaya 3) which wasn't relisted and did not involve any participation. I am asking for these two to be restored in light of the fuller discussions that took place later. Gotitbro (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro: You were notified on your talk page about the Koi Mil Gaya 3 nomination. You were also actively participating in the August 31 RfD page for the Krrish entries until two days after the Koi Mil Gaya 3 nomination. Why do you say you were unaware of the listings?

Why do you say that the nominations were incorrectly split? It is up to the nom to split the entries as per his rationale. Sometimes others do bundle them if they observe duplication, and see benefit in a bundled nomination. No one did so in this case, as I would believe the nominations were split evenly as 1, 2 and 3 ending titles.

From what I see, the closer chose to delete Koi Mil Gaya 3, but relisted Koi Mil Gaya 2, even though both had zero participation, because of page histories of other (Krrish) entries of the bulk nomination. All entries of that bulk nomination ended as kept based on strength of the Krrish entries. For Koi Mil Gaya 2, there was one vote in favour and one against (by the nom), but I would believe the closer went with keep as an ATD because of less participation.

The deletion was fine as a standard no-opposition close. The closer Explicit used to treat such closes as soft deletes that are open to reversal, so it should be straightforward to undelete and relist if that is the opinion. Jay 💬 08:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had made a collated comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Krish 1 for all of those discussions. You are right I was notified of one of the listings (Koi Mil Gaya 3). By being unaware I meant that I did not know it was being treated separately and would not be relisted (similar to the 2nd and 1st films) despite my comment at the Krish 1 entry, saying that I am making a reply for all of these listings. I now realize that it is up to the closer to decide to relist and separate listings are treated separately and it was my mistake in not making a comment at the other two entries linking my comment and rationale from Krish 1. Gotitbro (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is fair to assume that when Explicit deleted the third and relisted the second, he may not even have been aware of the first set of entries, or the collated discussion, as it was already relisted 3 hours prior by another relister CycloneYoris. Nor did the nomination statements of 2 and 3 have a backlink to 1. Jay 💬 16:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Koi Mil Gaya 2 demonstrates that the community disagrees with the delete rationale in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 24#Koi Mil Gaya 3. Such a movie does exist. Koi Mil Gaya 3 is a colloquial way to refer to Krrish 3, the third film in a series of three installments, the first of which is named Koi Mil Gaya.—Alalch E. 20:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10 September 2024

SureAI

In a close that I cannot fathom, Ritchie333 closed this as "merge". Half (6) argued for a keep, 2 argued for a merge, a minority (4) argued for deletion. Ritchie says that the deletion refuted the keeps, therefore merge has consensus, but I fail to see refutations. People disagreed, some considering the existing sources sufficient, others not. Even if you don't 'count' votes, I can't see how this is anything but a standard no consensus close. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} — Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The Delete and the Merge !votes there carry far more P&G weight than the various flavours of Keep. There was no specific consensus to Merge, but I agree with how the closer phrased it: the "merge" option suggested by some seemed to be the option that I felt most people who expressed a view could live with. Sometimes it's better to pick the outcome that the fewest would find objectionable than to just throw your hands in the air and do nothing with a "No consensus" close. I'm glad we have admins like Ritchie333 who have the resourcefulness and BOLDness to put aside the nose-counting, and find a solution that best reflects the preferences of participants, as supported by P&G. Owen× ☎ 23:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, since there wasn't one.—S Marshall T/C 11:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. I see an even split between keep and delete/ATD votes, both in number and strength. The keep side provided several sources of content which I do not believe were fully disputed by the delete/ATD side. The closing statement reads to me as a forced-compromise WP:SUPERVOTE. A second relist would be an okay option as well, but I do not see consensus forming with further discussion. Frank Anchor 14:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point about a forced compromise, but see no evidence of a supervote. Everything suggests that Ritchie was genuinely trying to find a way to close the AfD in the least contentious manner, without injecting his own views on the article or its sourcing. A forced compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing; we often use those when resolving editorial disputes. Owen× ☎ 17:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forced compromise is listed as a a type of supervote. A discussion has drawn to a close, with or without a clear outcome. It is supervoting to close in favor of an undiscussed or unfavored compromise idea, which may satisfy no one. If a discussion did not come to a consensus. Obviously merge was not "undiscussed," but in my opinion there was no consensus and a merge close was chosen as the “middle-ground” Frank Anchor 21:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was indeed chosen as a middle-ground. But it was specifically chosen as a favoured idea to satisfy the most participants, which is not what the WP:SPV essay is talking about. If AfD used some kind of runoff voting system, Merge would be the outcome here, supported by more participants than a No consensus. Owen× ☎ 22:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, "no consensus" was my second (and only other) choice. However, I felt the "merge" comments, particularly the closing one from HighKing, were strong and persuasive. The nominator, IgelRM, also suggested a merge. I'd also add that a NC close implies no prejudice against renomination (which may end up as "delete" - at least one editor observed the criteria for WP:CORP had been tightened up), whereas a merge can be expanded out at a later date if more sources are written. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Merge was not only an acceptable option, it was specifically discussed as being okay in the discussion itself. No consensus is not a catch all for when there are issues with sourcing that haven't been rebutted, especially when NCORP is involved. SportingFlyer T·C 20:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The keeps specifically addressed NCORP. So did the deletes. None came to agreement with regards to whether or not sourcing met NCORP, with many feeling it did not apply because the point of NCORP was to prevent spammy ad-like creations, which this specifically was not. There is no consensus for a merge. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved as I supported Merge at the AfD). By the numbers this is "No Consensus". I count 4 Delete, 2 Merge, and 5 Keeps. However, two of the Keeps do not cite sources and just gush about how great and notable their mods are. These comments should be given less weight because nobility is not inherited; makers of notable things are not automatically notable. Two of the Keeps list sources but don't explain why they meet WP:NCORP; they are good comments but not great. All four Delete comments contain at least some source analysis explaining that most of the sources in the article or linked in the AfD as really about Enderal (or occasionally another mod) and provide only passing coverage of the studio. Thus strength of argument seemingly favors Delete. But given that two comments argued for a Merge and that Delete is not a slam dunk (there are easily enough sources to meet WP:V and enough to meet WP:NCORP can be subjective) a merge is an excellent option as an ATD. It isn't an obvious consensus since it was only a minority "vote", but it is a compromise that addresses both sides primary concerns. I.e. The sources are not really sufficient for the current reading of NCORP, but this is an important in it's niche company that shouldn't be a red-link. In particular I believe that AfD's with this configuration of arguments (i.e. Delete stronger than Keep but not a clear consensus with a clear suggestion of a Merge target with no articulated objection) should be closed as Merge even if I myself happened to favor keeping or deleting the article for whatever reason. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I agree with the reading of the discussion as “merge”. If the merge doesn’t happen, it falls back to “no consensus” leaning “redirect”, not leaning “keep”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Clyde: I have again fixed your formatting to comply with DRV conventions. Secondly, can you please elaborate on this — which part of "per above" are you endorsing based on? DRV, more than anywhere else, needs nuanced commentary rather than "per X" voting, which adds very little to the discussion. Daniel (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]