Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 January 25: Difference between revisions

Endorse - The close reflected the consensus. The appellant appears to be relitigating, but DRV is not a second AFD. The appellant should be allowed to submit a draft, which should be substantially different from the deleted article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Robert. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Not a great discussion, but if the sources listed above are the best we have to meet WP:N the decision was correct. Hobit (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse correct close of that discussion and the links above wouldn't overcome the reason for deletion (WP:N). Hut 8.5 18:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – the discussion couldn't have been closed any other way, and the sources above don't give me any confidence that allowing recreation would lead to a different result. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - there's no other way to read that discussion, it was a clear delete result. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and this new user really should disclose whether they had another account as the article was UPE/publicist magnet. Star Mississippi 21:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Badnaseeb (closed)

Badnaseeb – Reclosed as redirect. A majority here, even if maybe not amounting to a consensus to overturn, agrees that this was a mistaken and inappropriate non-admin closure. Accordingly, I'm re-closing the AfD in my individual capacity as an administrator based on JoelleJay's comment with which I agree. This new closure can in turn be appealed to DRV. Sandstein 06:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think that this closure incorrectly assessed the discussion, wherein keep !voters failed to substantiate any of their claims regarding the depth of coverage available. That this is a subject which has been previously deleted at AfD is a further reason to consider "no consensus-keep" a poor outcome. Beyond that concern, it's an example of WP:BADNAC cases 2 and 4, as a close-call closure in a discussion that could result in a non-actionable result for a non-admin. I raised my concern with Superastig on their talk page, to which they responded I know that the "keep" votes are weak, but they still have merit whatsoever. And I don't see enough consensus for it to be deleted or redirected either. Therefore, I don't see a reason for me to revert my closure. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the no consensus closure as after three weeks of discussion there clearly was not consensus to delete or redirect. However, WP:TROUT User:Superastig for performing a NAC as those should be reserved for cases in which consensus is more obvious. Frank Anchor 03:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect. This is a case where there's enough of a strength-of-argument disparity to overcome the split in numbers, in my view. The delete/redirect !votes made specific arguments that the available sources didn't meet the GNG for specific guideline-based reasons (reliability, depth of coverage, etc.), while the keep !votes didn't rebut those arguments and just asserted with minimal reasoning that the sources were sufficient. (Tellingly, questions like "what do you feel are the top three sources in the article that have significant coverage of the show and are not interview pieces?" and "Could you identify precisely which sources you believe add up to meeting GNG?" went unanswered.) Consensus isn't a vote, and "unsubstantiated personal opinion[s]" about the sourcing don't outweigh well-argued, guideline-based !votes. (I'd feel the same way if the roles were reversed: if the keep !voters presented sources and explained why they meet the GNG while the delete !voters said nothing more than "delete; fails WP:GNG", the proper closure would be keep regardless of the vote !count.) There's thus consensus against a stand-alone article, so redirect (as an unrebutted ATD) is the proper closure. And that's all without considering the BADNAC aspect of this, which I think is an independent reason to overturn the close. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Redirect - This would have been a dubious close by an admin. The closer refers, on their talk page, to the Keep !votes, and does not state how they weighed the IP votes. In my opinion, the IP votes should have been either discounted completely, or treated as one vote by one human behind the two IPs. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per ~~Rosguill~~Frank Anchor. Anyone wishing to redirect the article would be welcome to do so as an normal editorial action. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill opened the DRV to challenge the closure- are you referring to someone else? Thanks and apologies if I missed anything. Cheers. VickKiang (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Brainfart fixed, thank you. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak endorse No keep really specified the best sources, only the nomination really discussed specific sources. I think this is a NC, but leaning toward delete pretty hard. I tend to be supportive of NACs, but this one is not a clear NC (yes, those exist). Given the closer is, if memory serves, very experienced at closing these things, I don't know that I'd overturn on the basis of being a NAC. But vague waves to the article's sources by the keep !votes aren't very convincing given the rest of the discussion. Hobit (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect - I don't think this was a WP:BADNAC as the closer is experienced, a plain headcount of !votes does suggest no consensus, and the discussion had already been relisted twice. However, good policy-based arguments for deletion were made, and really were not refuted. Several editors provided a cursory review of the sources and generally agreed that they amounted to passing mentions, and that notability was not established. A new source was added during the discussion, however when evidence was provided casting doubt on its reliability, the keep !voters either did not respond or simply asserted its suitability without providing any evidence in its favour. The weight of policy is clearly with the delete !voters, however redirecting the title is preferable to deletion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, regarding appeals to Superastig's experience as a closer, they have been warned against closing close or contentious AfDs when brought to DRV before (June 2021, November 2021, November 2022, and an ongoing discussion at January 2023). I'm not sure what the positive side of their unchallenged closes look like so I'm not trying to build consensus for a ban, but given that they seem to rarely engage with the actual DRV discussions, it seems that someone (I am obviously not an ideal messenger here) should have a word with them regarding when it's appropriate to NAC. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin closers who continuously do BADNACs aren't helping themselves towards administrator tools. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick check of last couple of dozen closes and I think I have some level of objection to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatih Mehmet Gul (none of the 'keep' arguments are doing much for me here) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish Association of Chartered Surveyors (per Liz's relist comment). Definitely need to sit down and read some more to work out where I actually sit on them. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate to allow an administrator to close. Per WP:NACD, non-admins should not perform no consensus closes of AfDs; apparent "no consensus" situations are inherently "Close calls and controversial decisions". Another outcome may be preferable, but I don't think it's necessary to get into that here. —Alalch E. 20:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Redirect per Extraordinary Writ's analysis. I am involved (I voted redirect), but from my involved point of view the keep votes are somewhat weaker in that the 2nd and 3rd keep votes are a bit vague, and are from IPs who have both only edited on a single article, List of programs broadcast by Hum TV (a related article that I proposed a redirect to). This might also be a controversial non-admin close that falls under WP:BADNAC criteria 2 (though I understand that is an essay). Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BADNAC doesn't say that NACs can't close AFDs as "No consensus" and it isn't uncommon in AFD-world for them to do so. So, while you might want to overturn this closure, it shouldn't be on the basis that NACs shouldn't close discussions as "No consensus". BADNAC warns against close calls but not all No consensus closures are close calls, sometimes it's the only sensible closure to make. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & redirect. This was pretty even off headcount, but the delete !votes seem to have more merit, and redirecting is an ATD. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 23:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn / Redirect The keep arguments are generally weak and fail to respond to the far stronger counter arguments and source analysis presented by the delete/redirect proponents. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Frank's and Hobit's argument. I agree with the closer that the keep !votes do have merit as the delete !votes. So it's unfair if they should be discarded. However, the NC isn't that clear for a lot of editors. So the closer needs some explanation to carry his closure. SBKSPP (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/redirect a patently poor NAC. 2 out of the 3 keep !votes are unsigned comments by Pakistan IPs with total article overlap and should have been discounted entirely as obvious socking. The sole other keep !vote (from an editor who has made the exact same types of edits to the exact same page the IPs edited...) vaguely claims to have added refs that were "not merely passing mentions or brief paragraphs" but does not explain how they count towards GNG and did not address the comments demonstrating several of the sources they added were not RS. Meanwhile, the delete/redirect !votes made P&G-based arguments and actively engaged with specific sources. This was an easy redirect close and probably should have resulted in an SPI. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 |}
-====[[:Badnaseeb]]====
+==== [[:Badnaseeb]] (closed) ====
+{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
+|-
+! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
+* <span class="anchor" id="Badnaseeb"></span>'''[[:Badnaseeb]]''' – '''Reclosed as redirect.''' A majority here, even if maybe not amounting to a consensus to overturn, agrees that this was a mistaken and inappropriate non-admin closure. Accordingly, I'm re-closing the AfD in my individual capacity as an administrator based on {{u|JoelleJay}}'s comment with which I agree. This new closure can in turn be appealed to DRV. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 06:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC) <!--*-->
+|-
+| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
+|-
+| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 :{{DRV links|Badnaseeb|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badnaseeb (2nd nomination)|article=}}
 I think that this closure incorrectly assessed the discussion, wherein keep !voters failed to substantiate any of their claims regarding the depth of coverage available. That this is a subject which has been previously deleted at AfD is a further reason to consider "no consensus-keep" a poor outcome. Beyond that concern, it's an example of [[WP:BADNAC]] cases 2 and 4, as a close-call closure in a discussion that could result in a non-actionable result for a non-admin.  I raised my concern with Superastig on their talk page, to which they responded {{tq|I know that the "keep" votes are weak, but they still have merit whatsoever. And I don't see enough consensus for it to be deleted or redirected either. Therefore, I don't see a reason for me to revert my closure.}} <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 02:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@@ Line 66: / Line 74: @@
 *'''Endorse''' per Frank's and Hobit's argument. I agree with the closer that the keep !votes do have merit as the delete !votes. So it's unfair if they should be discarded. However, the NC isn't that clear for a lot of editors. So the closer needs some explanation to carry his closure. [[User:SBKSPP|SBKSPP]] ([[User talk:SBKSPP|talk]]) 01:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 *'''Overturn/redirect''' a patently poor NAC. 2 out of the 3 keep !votes are unsigned comments by Pakistan IPs with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/182.182.13.245 total] article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/111.88.41.199 overlap] and should have been discounted entirely as obvious socking. The sole other keep !vote (from an editor who has made the exact same types of edits to the exact same [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Lillyput4455/0/List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Hum_TV page] the IPs edited...) vaguely claims to have added refs that were "not merely passing mentions or brief paragraphs" but does not explain how they count towards GNG and did not address the comments demonstrating several of the sources they added were not RS. Meanwhile, the delete/redirect !votes made P&G-based arguments and actively engaged with specific sources. This was an easy redirect close and probably should have resulted in an SPI. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 02:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
+|-
+| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
+|}