Wikipedia:Deletion review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DRVNOT)
 |
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:
- 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 there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of socks participating in the discussion);
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page, and previously deleted content may be helpful for writing a new version of the page – provided that an administrator declined undeleting the page and their decision is being challenged;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
- if the deleted page cannot be recreated because of preemptive restrictions on creation that cannot be removed without a consensus after removal was requested and declined. Such restrictions include creation protection and title blacklisting.
Deletion review should not be used:
- to request undeletion of a page deleted on grounds which permits summary undeletion. Place such requests at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Deletion review can be used if such a request is declined. (Undeletion may also be requested there for pages which are not explicitly eligible for summary undeletion, but such a request is usually declined; it is worth trying when substantial new sources have arisen after an article was deleted.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless a preemptive restriction on creation is in place for which removal was requested and declined. In the case of:
- creation protection – request removal of the protection from the protecting administrator or, if the administrator is unavailable or non-responsive, request at Wikipedia:Requests for page unprotection.
- title blacklisting – file a delisting request at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist.
- 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);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- 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 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).
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
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
 | If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
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, a large language model is used to construct the request, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "procedural close".
Significance not properly assessed, or changed (the software has >700 contributors and >37k stars on Github, and is present in multiple distros, maybe not the top ones though). [notify: @Explicit, A412, and Devilmanz] —Mykhal (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe compare with similarly named SW with >1.0 order of magnitude lower figures, Nu (programming language). —Mykhal (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Speedy delete No content.TheLongTone (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- @TheLongTone: the appeal is about the deleted article, which contained 180 words of prose and five cited sources, not for the current empty page. Owen× ☎ 16:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Number of contributors, stars or presence in other distributions are not contributors to notability. Katzrockso (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse: If we accept the appellant's first argument at face value, none of them are factors that contribute to a subject's notability, and the closer's judgment of consensus has not been called into question. The second argument is addressed by WP:DRVPURPOSE which says
If Nu (programming language) is believed to be non-notable (it's been notability-tagged since 2018 FWIW), then the solution is to send that page to AfD, but that is outside the purview of this discussion and can be done as an independent editorial action. Left guide (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Deletion review should not be used…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)
- The language this software uses seems entirely unrelated to the one described at Nu (programming language). —Cryptic 20:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Could we get a temp undelete? I'd like to see those 5 sources. Based on the discussion, I'm guessing they don't count much toward WP:N. Hobit (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- relist I'm seeing enough sources that at the least the discussion was flawed. [1] is certainly in depth and probably reliable. [2] seems okay. [3] has a brief mention. I'm not saying those are enough (though they may be), I just feel any discussion that doesn't address the sources is flawed enough it's worth trying again.
I'd still like the restore to see what was in the article.Hobit (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC) - Relist - There was little participation, and, after little participation, a second relist is likely to be helpful. I am not sure what the appellant means by
Significance not properly assessed
, which is not the responsibility of the closer, unless they mean that more input is desired. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC) - Endorse/allow relist at closer discretion. The discussion was relatively lightly participated, so I see little reason not to grant a relist, should the closer of this review believe it reasonable to do so. However, there is no way the discussion could have been closed differently.On the significance comment, the supporting argument most closely aligns to Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, which is sufficient to prevent an A7 (which, in any case, does not apply to software), but not an argument generally sufficient at AFD, which most often looks at direct and in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. I would encourage the requestor of the review to think about what argument they wish to make should the deletion discussion be relisted. Alternatively, a REFUND could be issued if the requestor is willing to submit the article through AFC, or wishes instead to reuse the contents elsewhere, licence permitting. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. A straightforward AfD that could not be closed any other way. If someone thinks everyone participating got it wrong, use WP:AfC and follow the advice at WP:THREE. Contributors, stars on Github, and multiple distros are irrelevant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse and oppose relisting per SmokeyJoe. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse DRV is not a place to complain about a result you did not like. There has to be a policy-based reason why the decision was wrong. There is none here, just a WP:ITSPOPULAR argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse no error has been shown in the process of this AfD. Local Variable (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse sometimes we spend too much time on clearly unwinable arguments. This page has been clearly shown not to have decent sourcing. Why would we waste volumteer time with a relist when no credible argument has been made to show notability? Spartaz Humbug! 11:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
This redirect, as well as the related Obama bin laden and Obama Bin Laden, are all valid typos for Osama bin Laden, especially on keyboards such as the Neo keyboard) where the "s" and "b" keys are close together. While it is unfortunate that the term is also used as an attack on Barack Obama, I think that it should be undeleted as a valid typo/search term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PokemonPerson (talk • contribs) 06:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Do not allow recreation. Similar arguments were made in the RfD, because in it, the keep side said that it is a common misspelling. Therefore, no such significant new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify undeleting the page or allowing its recreation, which is currently disallowed via G4.—Alalch E. 15:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion Typing that in the search box brings up Osama's article as one of the top results, even without a redirect. No obvious need for a redirect, especially one that can be used as an attack page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse and do not allow recreation - The phrase is almost always an attack rather than a typo on a variant keyboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse for the same reasons as this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse and disallow recreation: Even if we assume that both the competing keyboard and attack arguments have merit, we should generally err on the side of removal/deletion in ambiguous grey area cases per WP:BLP policy. Left guide (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Why are we here at DRV 5.5 years later? I get that any re-creation would be G4 eligible, but we've lived without it being recreated for ~5.5 years so... why now? Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly. No new information. —Alalch E. 22:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Not only is this not a plausible typo, the claim that it's a plausible typo isn't plausible either. Plausible misspelling, yes, deliberate or otherwise - see for instance the summary of this article, which leads me to think we could probably find enough documentation of its use in mainsteam reliable sources to merit a mention somewhere. But without that well-sourced mention, WP:RNEUTRAL isn't enough to override that rfd. —Cryptic 01:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse Zxcvbnm hits the nail on the head. It already comes up as a suggestion in search. Adding this redirect runs the risk of additions of this name to articles - whether deliberately or inadvertently, not being flagged as redlinks and harder to spot. Local Variable (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse per all above, this misspelling is equally plausible as "Odama bin Laden" or Oxama bin Laden" which are not redirects while also a possible attack page toward President Obama If anything, "Obama bin Laden" could also be a valid search term for the killing of Mr. bin Laden, which occurred under President Obama's watch. (I am aware these arguments are more suited toward an XFD than a DRV, but it adds to my point that the deletion was correct). Frank Anchor 16:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. Nothing has been submitted that suggests the deletion policy wasn't properly followed. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. Argument presented was one of the arguments discussed at the RfD. No assertion has been made that assessment of consensus in that discussion was faulty, or that the situation has materially changed since then. I suppose the information about "s" and "b" proximity on the Neo keyboard could be considered new information, but an argument based on possible typos in a niche, German-language keyboard layout (that has been around since 2004, well-predating the RDF) is not compelling. Martinp (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse per above. It does not need a redirect as searching it brings up Osama Bin Laden nor has the nom demonstrated how the closure got the deletion wrong.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Incredibles 3 (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Inappropriate closure, AfD nominator closed the discussion on the same day as the nomination. An uninvolved editor should have closed this. Also, although there was consensus that Incredibles 3 should be redirected, there was no consensus as to where it should redirect to. The only person who proposed a redirect target was me, to The Incredibles (franchise). The page was redirected to Incredibles_2#Sequel, however, I believe there wasn't any consensus to reach this decision as only one person gave their opinion as to where it should redirect to, and that was me to a different article. You could say that the other voters implied a redirect to Incredibles 2 as the page previously redirected to that, however, it really should be firmly stated. I now personally believe it should redirect to The_Incredibles_(franchise)#Incredibles_3_(2028) as Incredibles 3 is part of a larger franchise and is technically also a sequel to the first movie. The franchise page is a better target. Also, less than a day is too little time for a SNOW closure.. jolielover♥talk 04:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
I would like to appeal the decision to delete made by User:OwenX. Two admins had previously relisted the AfD due to lack of consensus and each relist drew additional keep !votes, indicating momentum toward retention. At closure, five editors supported keep and three supported delete, with multiple experienced editors citing policy-based arguments. In ruling to delete, OwenX offered reasoning that was thoughtful but seems to have substituted personal judgment for consensus assessment. The close disregarded a developing consensus and prematurely ended discussion that was either leaning keep or would have remain unresolved - in which case the decision would defer to keep. Reopening the AfD would allow proper consensus to form. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn. Supervote. The closer’s original analysis is too much. They should have !voted. If anything, the close should have been “no consensus” because not enough participants were agreeing to delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- Looking through the references in the deleted article, the first ([4]) is an interview with a preamble. The interview-proper is non-independent and to be ignored for notability-testing purposes. The interesting preamble is:
It takes a special breed of engineer to record and mix—produce and compose too—the soundtracks to the worlds built by an army of production teams for our entertainment, and one standout in this field, both professionally and personally is, Greg Hayes.
To date, Greg Hayes, the engineer’s ‘engineer,’ has 220 credits across music department and sound department to his name. From major motion pictures—”Crazy Rich Asians,” “Ant-Man and The Wasp,” “BlacKkKlansman”—to TV Series and Broadcast Sports—”Perry Mason,” “Daybreak,” and F1 Sports’ “Formula One,” chances are you’ve been immersed in the plot and enjoyed Greg’s special gift.
Our interview with Greg is a feature of the artisan and his application of the Chandler Limited EMI / Abbey Road Studios REDD Microphone to his craft, which is the art of sound for film and television.
- Is this enough information to write an article? 133 words? That meets WP:100W. I call this debatable.
- Every other reference is primary source scrapping for every listing of his name. No other reference contains comment about the subject.
- It is NOT the role of the closer to play the expert adjudicator. The closer's analysis needs to have been in the AfD discussion, subject to reply by the other participants. The community needs to brought along. Too many "keep" statements were good enough to not be summarily ignored.
- -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think the closer supervoted. Their close should have been a !vote. If relisted, I would !vote “delete”, due to the topic failing the GNG. The SNGs should be read as indicators of meeting the GNG, and the article meeting WP:ANYBIO criterion #1 is trumped by the GNG fail. I consider reference 1 to be non-independent. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- I.e. right outcome, but the closer was too heavy in their role. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think the closer supervoted. Their close should have been a !vote. If relisted, I would !vote “delete”, due to the topic failing the GNG. The SNGs should be read as indicators of meeting the GNG, and the article meeting WP:ANYBIO criterion #1 is trumped by the GNG fail. I consider reference 1 to be non-independent. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- Looking through the references in the deleted article, the first ([4]) is an interview with a preamble. The interview-proper is non-independent and to be ignored for notability-testing purposes. The interesting preamble is:
- Vacate the Close but treat the close, which was a supervote as a vote to Delete. Leave the AFD for another closer. Also, the closer only considered general notability and musical notability. But there were also references to an Emmy and a Grammy, and those are applicable to any biography point 1, but were not addressed by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- (closer here)
treat the close [...] as a vote to Delete
?! Is this one of your attempts at humour? What vote should we ascribe to the two relisters? What is the policy basis for counting a decision from someone who didn't read the article, review the sources, nor has any opinion about the subject's notability--as a vote? I'm used to seeing these baseless "supervote" accusations from you, Robert McClenon, but I believe you're breaking new procedural ground here with your proposal to force people who have no opinion on a topic to be counted as having voted on it. As for your claim that ANYBIO wasnot addressed by the closer
, the 2nd paragraph in my closing statement addressed exactly that. Have you read it? Owen× ☎ 15:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)- The second paragraph of the close states "Saying that WP:NMUSIC doesn't matter because WP:ANYBIO criterion #1 is met anyway shows a poor understanding of our guidelines", which is a misrepresentation of the editors argument, which is that WP:NMUSIC bio does not apply because he is not a musician, but an audio engineer. While this seems like splitting hairs, it is a valid argument that went unaddressed in the discussion and I don't see how the answer is irrefutably obvious from the PAG, rather than a matter of interpretive opinion. Composers/songwriters are awarded Grammys too, but they are not covered by WP:NMUSICBIO, but rather WP:COMPOSER. Upon checking the talk page for WP:NMUSIC, I found serious disagreement between editors over whether producers, audio engineers and mixers are covered by WP:NMUSICBIO. Either way, the editor who argued that NMUSICBIO is inapplicable was the nominator who wanted to delete the article, not the editors !voting to keep it.
- It also doesn't address the Emmy, which is not a music award, but for other audio engineering feats (an argument endorsed by two edits: SarekofVulcan and ChrysGalley) on a movie. Katzrockso (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- (closer here)
- Request Temporary Undeletion so that I can view the mentions of the Grammy and the Emmy, but I think that I have seen enough to say that the close should be vacated as a supervote. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus We have said before that previous relists aren't binding on the next admin to come along... but that's only somewhat true. Each relist got another keep and no one opposed to keeping. Both previously relisting admins have a balanced reputation--they don't hesitate to close things as delete if that's the consensus. I can see 'no consensus' as within discretion, but to close as delete after two weeks of no new delete opinions stretches discretion too far. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- (closer here) The second relisting comment states Asilvering didn't find the Keeps persuasive, suggesting they were likely already leaning towards a Delete close, but willing to give it another week in hope of a clearer consensus. I could be wrong - Asilvering, please correct me if I misread you. Owen× ☎ 15:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, this was something of a rebuke to the keep !voters who were saying "keep because awards" without substantially addressing the concerns raised by the delete !voters, which specifically addressed why those awards were insufficient in this case. -- asilvering (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- So, if that was the intent, it wasn't really clear to me reading it after the fact. I appreciate relists that give pointers as to what the relister thinks the compelling questions are, but no, a failure of past or future participants to address the relisting statements doesn't seem to be weighting for or against anything in particular. If that's not right, I'd like to see participant expectations clarified. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Relisting, like closing, is an administrative role, and you should not be combining administrative roles with opinion. If your contribution is "The "keep" !votes are ignoring "delete" !voters', you should !vote that.
- Relisting with meaningful comments is good for refocusing a discussion, but should be done neutrally. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- If relisters and closers are playing tag team with coded comments, they should stop it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- No one is playing games here, SmokeyJoe. When I see an AfD where participants bring up arguments that aren't based on P&G, I try to point it out in my relisting comment, giving participants a chance to beef up their case, rather than surprising them by discarding their !vote when closing. That's exactly what Asilvering tried to do here. Neither Asilvering nor I had an opinion about the article, and there are no "coded comments" here. The relist was a failed attempt to solicit arguments that weren't based on a misguided application of the awards criterion, leaving me with no option but to discount those !votes when closing. Not every relist is an implied "N/C". We routinely relist discussions where P&G-based rough consensus is there, but involves discounting weak arguments, which none of us enjoys doing. Once the clock runs out, we are forced to adjudicate based on what's there. Owen× ☎ 10:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- You are never forced to adjudicate. You had the option, for example, too !vote.
- Slipping into behavioural patterns does not require or imply the playing of games.
- I understand what you and asilvering are saying, but I also see that for the ordinary editor, that two relists and two “keep” !votes leading to a “delete” outcome astonishing. Looking at the perspective of User:Indefensible and User:Brucemyboy1212, it is reasonable for them to have assumed that they were succeeding in defending the article, and for the, to have not realised that the relist comments were challenges to them to do better.
- I’m also looking at how User:SarekOfVulcan’s !vote received two agreements and no challenges. It’s understandably astonishing to keep !voters to be told that the discussion was leaning “delete”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- No one is playing games here, SmokeyJoe. When I see an AfD where participants bring up arguments that aren't based on P&G, I try to point it out in my relisting comment, giving participants a chance to beef up their case, rather than surprising them by discarding their !vote when closing. That's exactly what Asilvering tried to do here. Neither Asilvering nor I had an opinion about the article, and there are no "coded comments" here. The relist was a failed attempt to solicit arguments that weren't based on a misguided application of the awards criterion, leaving me with no option but to discount those !votes when closing. Not every relist is an implied "N/C". We routinely relist discussions where P&G-based rough consensus is there, but involves discounting weak arguments, which none of us enjoys doing. Once the clock runs out, we are forced to adjudicate based on what's there. Owen× ☎ 10:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, this was something of a rebuke to the keep !voters who were saying "keep because awards" without substantially addressing the concerns raised by the delete !voters, which specifically addressed why those awards were insufficient in this case. -- asilvering (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- (closer here) The second relisting comment states Asilvering didn't find the Keeps persuasive, suggesting they were likely already leaning towards a Delete close, but willing to give it another week in hope of a clearer consensus. I could be wrong - Asilvering, please correct me if I misread you. Owen× ☎ 15:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse (uninvolved) The rationale was extremely well-reasoned and not a supervote. Most of the keep !votes were about him winning a Grammy/Emmy, but it seems that he was not the sole recipient and it would not count towards WP:MUSICBIO, thus it makes sense that they would all be discounted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to NC I get the individual vs. group issue. But exactly how to apply that isn't black-and-white and should be the realm of the discussion, not for just the closer to decide. Between that and the ANYBIO argument, I don't see a way to get to delete. I could see either keep or NC however. Hobit (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - No, treating the closing statement as a vote was not intended as humor. The closing statement was a well-reasoned statement but went beyond the limits of assessing consensus. It was not a valid closing statement because it was a supervote, but it should not be ignored, because it was well-reasoned and should be given some consideration. It was better reasoned than some of the Keep votes. No, the two Relists were valid Relists, and should not be treated as votes. No, I was not trying to be humorous in this case, but was trying to give some consideration to a reasoned argument. I acknowledge that I missed the mention of the WP:ANYBIO guideline. I don't consider it persuasive, but I admit that I did overlook it although I read the closing statement twice. No, treating the closing statement as a vote was not intended as humor, but to give credit to a reasoned statement that was useful although, in my opinion, misplaced. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment There are problems with how the AFD was conducted. My biggest concern is not with the closing statement, which I believe is correct in interpreting our policies and guidelines, but with Asilvering's relist. While we do expect editors who relist discussions to push participants to address issues that come up during the discussion (such as "do the new sources found meet GNG"), the comment by Asilvering is more bitey and probably would have been better if it were a delete !vote rather than an administrative action. However, since it was relisted at that point, we have a problem with the close because it looks bad (close of delete after two unanswered keep !votes), not that it was "wrong" in which side of the discussion had the stronger argument. --Enos733 (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus. The novel arguments in the close are not inarguable expositions of settled policy, but the basis for a !vote. This is an article that the content of the article and sources has almost nothing to do with the AfD, as the notability hinges upon two awards received. Katzrockso (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus(uninvolved). Multiple keep !votes were given after the re listings with no one arguing for deletion after the re listings and the arguments in the close went beyond assessing consensus and seem better suited as a !vote not a close.So no consensus is the correct option given the split in views amongst the participants in the AFD and the only keep !votes after the re listings.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 11:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse (though I would not oppose that the issue be returned to AFD as a relist or fresh nomination). The issue at review appears to primarily concern whether administrators acted within the bounds of a purely administrative role or have entered into the substantive discussion. A secondary element could be the actual weighing of the discussion, in which we can consider whether a different weighting of the !votes expressed may have been appropriate, whether the described weighting may have been in error and, once arrived at the range given by valid exercise of judgement, which conclusions were within discretion. I find the weighting reasonable, and the close covers points made in the discussion which in turn supports that there is no reason to consider the close a supervote. As it grew to quite some length, I have collapsed my full analysis below. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
My view of asilvering's relist comment
|
|---|
|
To start on the tangential issue, I would dissent with SmokeyJoe and (partially) Enos's comments on the relisting statement. While, as raised by Jclemens, there may have been differing expectations as to the meaning of the relist statement, and touching on points raised by Enos, there may have been a different phrasing that got across better the point of (something which appears to be along the lines of)
"In my assessment of the comments entered, 'it clearly does' without any reasoning attached would not be weighted highly in determining the question raised in previous discussion."I do no believe such a statement is in anyway improper. Administrators are expected to exclude comments in some cases, and an explanation of how that exclusion is likely to take place (where relevant) is precisely what we would want. It should not constitute entering substantively into the discussion. |
The post-relist keep !votes
|
|---|
|
Assessing the weighting of the discussion, we can return later to the discussion before the first relist, which was assessed as
finely balanced, and examine the two post-relist keep comments. To start with, Katzrockso states that ChrysGalley endorses the argument in favour of the Emmy. Actually reading the comment, I see no reason to believe this is so, and the comment seems quite confused on matters of policy. There are three clauses in their comment, which I will address in reverse order:
clearlyone way or straight out from the NMUSIC policyfall a little flat when the discussion on individual/group recipients also arises from WP:MUSICBIO #8 and is not addressed substantively in their comment. |
The overall discussion
|
|---|
|
The numerical count of the discussion was 5 keeps (one "weak", but that doesn't really matter much) and 4 deletes, including the nominator. One participant discussed a point of policy but did not !vote. The balance of the numbers is not such that one option is clearly favoured. In assessing the discussion prior to the relist (3k, 4d), we can separate out the discussion on the basic and additional criteria. In my opinion, the discussion primarily focuses on the additional criteria, so it was correct for that to be the focus of the close, and of the limited discussion on BASIC, I can see a rough consensus that the subject does not meet it.
Notably, the article creator seems to accept this. sksatsuma's comments do argue for a BASIC pass, but while her reasoning is a good reason for an AFC accept, the analysis does not appear to describe how they make the distinction between On the matter of the additional criteria, realistically, whether MUSICBIO applies to the case does not make a huge difference. The MUSICBIO criterion discussed is a more specific version of its ANYBIO equivalent, but they are more or less equivalent beyond specificity. It is not clear if Brucemyboy, our article creator, wished to engage with the discussion on whether the awards in question when awarded to a group, met the level of In any case, I do not believe that they have sufficiently made the case that it is so incorrect that the discussion is entirely invalid and should be ignored entirely. Therefore, I would agree with Owen's assessment that said discussion is the primary factor in determining the issue at hand (whether the awards in question are sufficient for the additional criteria) LastJabberwocky (d) and sksatsuma (k) primarily focused on the basic criteria, leaving 2k, 3d, which is not unreasonable to characterise as finely balanced, but also not impossible to find a rough consensus from. Both could arise from reasonable exercises of judgement. Even with the relists giving a 4k, 3d, assuming we count both post-relist !votes as addressing the question, it would not be extraordinary to find a rough consensus that the awards are not sufficient (and thus, by extension, that the article should be deleted). The discussion could be said to hinge on the weighting of Sarek's |
Supervote
|
|---|
|
While the process was somewhat different from by own assessment, the closing statement appears to reasonably be read as how the closer applied Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Consensus. I do not see points raised that were not substantively covered in the discussion, and to enjoin closers from providing such explanations would run counter to our expectations.
|
- Endorse Consensus requires evaluation of the merit of arguments, not just summing up numbers or accepting bald assertions that certain criteria are met. The closer pointed out the lack of logic in the arguments that the SSG was met, as did another contributor to the AfD. This is a borderline call, but I consider this closure was within discretionary range. Local Variable (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- endorse because closing AFDs like this is hard and the outcome is arguably within the closing admins' discretion. Spartaz Humbug! 22:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The consensus in this discussion was not assessed based on our PAGs but instead on a majority vote. Specifically the keep !votes in this discussion were 1) WP:OSE, 2) WP:INHERIT, 3) WP:ITSUSEFUL, 4) WP:OSE, 5) Arguing that a page that patently isn't a nav-page is a nav-page, 6) WP:PERX, 7) WP:OSE again. These !votes should have been down-weighted in any close. Request reopening of the discussion or overturning to no-consensus. Let me also say I am not impressed by a fellow admin both not providing any rationale for their close and refusing to discuss their closes on their talk page: if you're not going to do one, you need to at least do the other, doing neither is not within the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT because it means taking action without any explanation at all. It also means you need to literally bring a discussion to DELREV to get an explanation of what the close was based on. FOARP (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Several months ago this page was speedy deleted as it was targeted by trolls who vandalized the page due to this, good faith editors such as myself who wished to document the events that had happened (the drive-through exposure, the suicide and the mock vigil afterwards) in good faith were tarred with the same brush as trolls who wanted to mock this man's death. Regardless, this event was a very notable event in internet culture and there are articles on other suicides such as Suicide of Ronnie McNutt and Suicide of Amanda Todd which have articles. I believe there needs to be a review of this deletion several months after the events have passed. I could find the following sources reporting on the events after the article's deletion on the 5 February.[5][6][7][8][9] GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This was closed as a keep without a rationale, implying it was an uncontroversial keep, which surprised me heavily. It was a fairly even split between keep and delete, especially considering that several keep arguments were WP:VAGUEWAVEs that failed to engage with the argument in my nomination. I'd expect it to have been relisted or at the very least a no consensus closure, which, if the rationale was well reasoned enough, I'd find understandable. The closer of the page also states that he does not discuss AfD closes on his talk page notice, which strikes me as insufficient, given that communication is required. "All Wikipedia editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to use talk pages to discuss issues when needed.", which doesn't line up here. This is after his no consensus close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony T. DiPietro was overturned and the article deleted just last month. Much wasted time at DRV could be saved if he was simply willing to accept a potentially entirely valid argument as to why a close was unmerited. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Non-admin closure, where I don't see a consensus to delete, not even close. Furthermore, I don't understand the rationale. The categorization is very relevant - we want to know all the players, past and present, with Wikipedia articles who have played in the Swedish Hockey League. Deleting a category for [league] players would be unthinkable in the football part of Wikipedia. It is not possible/feasible to find SHL players via club categories. I seeek an overturn, the category reinstated and probably relisted - though it should probably be as a 2nd nom. Geschichte (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- Geschichte, I hope you'll forgive my hazy memory, this was two years ago after all. As I recall, the category was by and large a container category; it didn't contain individual players. (
It is not possible/feasible to find SHL players via club categories.
- you seem to agree with the deletion here.) I still see a consensus in that discussion - there was no one who outright objected to it, and Kaffet i halsen (as nom) and Peterkingiron (who suggesting merging which was functionally equivalent to deletion in this case) explicitly supported, and Crowsus concluded withThe question is whether it should be repurposed to mirror the football usage (a lot of work), or just deleted.
which implicitly offers weak support for deletion. CfDs are very rarely relisted more than twice, and I saw no reason here to break with tradition. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)- (I now realise I didn't mention this, but I'm the closer of the CfD.) — Qwerfjkltalk 17:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Too late, Endorse. This was a line-ball call on an unimportant question over two years ago. CfD doesn’t delete content. The CfD nominator, User:Kaffet i halsen, is active. Try asking them to discuss a way forward. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- Allow recreation/restore The close wasn't obvious and wasn't explained. I see the argument provided above and I get it, but while CfD generally deletes with a lower bar than most xfDs, I don't think we're there in this discussion. Now, it is 2 years old and I've no idea how much of a technical pain this would be or what has changed since then. So if there is a good reason at this point to not restore, that would change my view. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- (original nominator) I can confirm Qwerfjkl's memory that it was a container category, with 15–20 something players of team categories (the same construction as e.g. Category:Liiga players) with teams that had also played in other leagues than Elitserien/SHL because of promotion/relegation and being active before 1975 (start of the league). This may not be entirely clear from only looking at the discussion now. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. There was a consensus to delete the category, it is clear what was deleted and why, the close is correct, treating "merge" as cognate with "delete" in this particular case was an objectively accurate interpretation, there are no NAC-related concerns, and discussion having been closed by a non-admin is in line with established CfD practices.—Alalch E. 17:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse the conclusion to merge/delete Typically the first step is to have a conversation with the closer about the reasons if they don't understand them. Here's a link to the discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 5#Category:Swedish Hockey League players. I think that this is really too stale to reopen for a CFD. Perhaps the closer and nominator can have a talk page conversation with Geschichte about what it means to be defining here. SMasonGarrison 23:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- This was deleted because it was a container category. If Geschichte wants to recreate it as something other than a container category, then he's free to do that and WP:G4 wouldn't be an obstacle. I don't think there's anything for DRV to do here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- DRV can endorse the NAC as an acceptable one in the context of CfD and endorse the finding of consensus as correct. —Alalch E. 22:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Per User_talk:Vanderwaalforces#Template:Authority_control_(arts), there was never really a consensus to merge here. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Vacate BADNAC No way that shows a clear enough consensus for a NAC--I'd argue it hadn't reached consensus at all, so either an admin reclose or relist would both be fine. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Vanderwaalforces has over 50,000 edits, and has been closing discussion for years. I don't think it's fair to argue an incorrect conclusion was reached due to inexperience with editing or closing. Nor do I think someone is better at closing just because they're an admin. I'm an admin who rarely uses admin tools, and I have much less experience closing discussions. -- Beland (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- This is an invalid argument. TFD does not require NACs to operate a certain way. Consensus to reach X is allowed for any non-admin closer. Izno (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I'm not used to nuances of here a NAC, there a NAC. I don't do TFD at all, but my default assumption is that a non-obvious close needs an admin, and this one clearly appears as such to me. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's a point of education then :^): At TFD, it's fine to say the close was bad. It's not fine to say it was because they were not an admin. Izno (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm still not sold on the idea that a NAC is fine at one venue, bad in another. That's special pleading. I do note that my immediately prior edit was a NAC here at DRV... but that's because there was zero disagreement between established editors and doing so is well within the page precedent. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's not special pleading though. TFD is set up to allow anyone to close. That's ignoring that "BADNAC" is an essay, despite its referrers trying to apply it elsewhere (for any of several possible reasons). Ignoring that, of course, none of the reasons laid out in the actual section on BADNAC apply in this specific instance to the specific NAC: The topic is not contentious, VF has plenty of experience editing Wikipedia, this is TFD where non-admins can do things, and they were uninvolved in the discussion.
- WP:NACD does exist: VF indicated they're not an admin, they don't appear to have violated ADMINACCT/UNINVOLVED, and it's TFD as above. And a few other bullets mostly echoing BADNAC's list.
- But from NACD,
Close calls [...] are better left to admins.
which is reasonably relevant. But it's better left to admins and not verboten for non-admins. Among the criteria, I don't find this collection of facts strongly an argument for a toss on this dimension. Izno (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm still not sold on the idea that a NAC is fine at one venue, bad in another. That's special pleading. I do note that my immediately prior edit was a NAC here at DRV... but that's because there was zero disagreement between established editors and doing so is well within the page precedent. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's a point of education then :^): At TFD, it's fine to say the close was bad. It's not fine to say it was because they were not an admin. Izno (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I'm not used to nuances of here a NAC, there a NAC. I don't do TFD at all, but my default assumption is that a non-obvious close needs an admin, and this one clearly appears as such to me. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Meh I don’t agree that this is a badnac. Some XFDs have to operate in an environment with nacs because there are simply no admins interested in that area who understand it well enough to interpret those arguments. That said it, despite being open two months, I wouldn’t like to have to find a consensus there - but see my previous comment. The argument that we are removing a redundancy has some attraction to me though so I’m firmly in the meh camp. Spartaz Humbug! 10:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- While that claim was definitely true of TfD in the past, these days TfD has at least 3 active regular admin closers and most discussions are closed by admins. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Which doesn't excuse an incorrect suggestion that this was a BADNAC. It may be BAD, but that it was an NAC is irrelevant at TFD. Izno (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Which is also true; the issue here isn't that the closer doesn't have enough experience to close contentious discussions, it's just that they made a close which (IMO) doesn't reflect the consensus the discussion came to. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Which doesn't excuse an incorrect suggestion that this was a BADNAC. It may be BAD, but that it was an NAC is irrelevant at TFD. Izno (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- While that claim was definitely true of TfD in the past, these days TfD has at least 3 active regular admin closers and most discussions are closed by admins. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse the outcome, though it would have probably been better to be left to an administrator. Policy-based votes show a rough consensus to replace, considering the main “keep” argument is that it would take a considerable effort to replace the thousands of instances across Wikipedia. The closer correctly gave that argument less weight as there is no deadline to complete this task. Frank Anchor 14:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus, or re-open There was never really an explanation of the technical merit of merging. Put the other way, what technical debt or problem is incurred leaving it in place as a shortcut? I wouldn't readily dismiss the argument that a substantial number of edits are required on a merge either; that's not determinative, but it's a relevant consideration. Local Variable (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral as I have a history with this topic (as does Pppery). I've offered bot support to migrate this over, and I've drafted code at [10] - it's straightforward to implement but it needs to go through a bot request before I can run it, which I'll start after this discussion closes, if needed. I think that @MSGJ, Fram, Grimes2, Izno, WikiCleanerMan, DavidBrooks, WomenArtistUpdates, Antibabelic, Beland, Frietjes, and Photographer's Box: should also be aware of this discussion since they participated in the TfD. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly how to !vote on this request to vacate a Bad non-administrative closing. Don't vacate the closing? I do know I want this "Authority control (arts)" wrapper, or template, or whatever the heck it is, to be deleted. The consensus was to delete this, the result languished for months, if not years. I can't even find the original request for deletion, but nobody uses this template except the template's creator, who, after applying the template without consensus, is now claiming that it would be too much work to delete and has started this discussion up yet again. In the words of James Brown "Please, please, please..." --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Aha, I see several !votes on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 July 17#Module:Authority control (arts) requested simultaneous deletion of the module and the template that was created for the module. It seems the deletion of the template fell between the cracks. -- Beland (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure deletion of the template follows from deleting the fork of the module. Deleting the forked module is easy, deleting the template in question necessitates a huge number of changes in articles. Local Variable (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- If the template had been deleted after that discussion, a DRV would have rapidly overturned it. You can't nominate a no longer used module for deletion, and then hijack that discussion to delete an in-use template which isn't even tagged for deletion and for which the reasons for deletion of the module don't apply (and even less so when the people arguing for such stealth deletion are the same ones who argued for its deletion in the previous TfD which ended in keep). Hence my fear that once they get rid of the wrapper, they will then remove the functionality as that wouldn't require a more public TfD but could just be done with a template talk page discussion among very few people. I still don't get the reason why those people don't want this to exist and believe that it is sufficient to have e.g. 18 relevant Authority Control links at Vincent van Gogh, but want instead to show 49 such links, all with the same info but in different languages ([11][12][13]). All of these and many more are available from Wikidata, why all of them need to be visible on an enwiki article is never made clear (apparently "for librarians" as if they can't and don't use Wikidata when necessary). Fram (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. Except in unusual circumstances which don't apply here, every deletion discussion requires each page it would apply to do be separately tagged and listed in the header. And if I had seen it at a time when the consensus wasn't obvious I would also have supported deleting the module - it's fine, and probably a good idea for the same backend code to be used. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- There never was consensus to delete this. On the contrary, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 26#Template:ACArt (where you voted delete) closed as "Keep".
- "the template's creator, who, after applying the template without consensus, is now claiming that it would be too much work to delete and has started this discussion up yet again." I didn't start this DRV, and didn't claim that it would be "too much work" to delete.
- Can you please stick to the facts? Fram (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nor did I claim it was too much work to delete - if there were a strong reason to delete I would have been fine with it. My !vote there, expanded, is that by doing this you would have run a bot to make 16,000 edits, and what you would be accomplishing by doing that? Nothing but making things look slightly tidier. (I don't buy Fram's fear that the entire functionality will be neutered in a later module update). * Pppery * it has begun... 19:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- For me the facts are that this thing was created for no reason except one person found the regular authority control template to be too cluttered on the desktop version. The art specific template serves no useful function, it just satisfies one (1) person's aesthetics. The template was deployed by a bot making replacements before any meaningful discussion took place. This has now evolved into a years long technical debate that will keep reappearing with someone new asking "why does this even exist?" every once in a while. It doesn't save any space. It doesn't make the information any clearer one way of the other. For every Vincent van Gogh example there can be another one produced to show why all the data IS interesting.
- I see no compelling practical reason that this be kept. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Like many things, it was created by one person, but then debated by the wider community at the TfD I linked to above, and that closed as keep. So the "one person" argument no longer applies. Feel free to list your counterexamples though. Fram (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- And it was never deployed by a bot. That´s the third blatantly incorrect claim you make now. This is disruptive. Fram (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that you manually changed 16,000 entries? --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Are you claiming that anybody changed 16,000 entries? —Cryptic 23:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Nevermind, misread which part was being claimed to be deployed.I've taken a closer look, with a sample of 20 random articles currently transcluding the template (which is too small, but all I have time to manually look at right now). In none of them was the template put in place by a bot. In one article, Rufino Tamayo, it was placed by Ymblanter; in all 19 others, it was deployed by Fram using AWB (still not a bot!), between 9 February 2021 and 11 June 2021. —Cryptic 17:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that you manually changed 16,000 entries? --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- And it was never deployed by a bot. That´s the third blatantly incorrect claim you make now. This is disruptive. Fram (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Like many things, it was created by one person, but then debated by the wider community at the TfD I linked to above, and that closed as keep. So the "one person" argument no longer applies. Feel free to list your counterexamples though. Fram (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Aha, I see several !votes on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 July 17#Module:Authority control (arts) requested simultaneous deletion of the module and the template that was created for the module. It seems the deletion of the template fell between the cracks. -- Beland (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn, bad close. I have no idea what the "stronger policy-based arguments" are that the close is based on. Which policy? Fram (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I find a need to address this comment, especially since it is a question. One of WP:TFD#REASONS is that "the template is redundant to a better-designed template", I'm sorry but imagine if the creation of this template was done now in 2025, I wonder who would use it instead of just using the normal template with a
|show=artsparameter. FWIW, imagine someone creating a template called "Reflist (indent)" when editors could just simply say "Reflist|indent=yes". So, yeah, I found the argument of 16k bot edits to articles being a problem to be of less weight compared to the argument about complexity and, as I stated on my talk, avoid confusion for editors and ensures that future changes only need to be made in one place. I am sorry if this was a BADNAC, and I stand to be corrected. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)- "the template is redundant to a better-designed template": that's a possible reason why a template may be nominated for deletion, not a policy reason that it has to be deleted. Otherwise why would we even have the discussion? Every wrapper template is redundant, feel free to propose a speedy deletion to get rid of all of them. Here it feels like a supervote. Fram (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- No it is not a super vote, it is exactly what I avoid when closing discussions. My explanations are branches of my close, not to try to become INVOLVED in the discussion process. Thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- "the template is redundant to a better-designed template": that's a possible reason why a template may be nominated for deletion, not a policy reason that it has to be deleted. Otherwise why would we even have the discussion? Every wrapper template is redundant, feel free to propose a speedy deletion to get rid of all of them. Here it feels like a supervote. Fram (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- In the original TfD you said you had "no objection" to merging these templates if the same functionality is retained. Why have you changed your stance? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- DRV is not about "did the close align with my !vote", but "did the close correctly summarize the consensus". Fram (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- I find a need to address this comment, especially since it is a question. One of WP:TFD#REASONS is that "the template is redundant to a better-designed template", I'm sorry but imagine if the creation of this template was done now in 2025, I wonder who would use it instead of just using the normal template with a
- Eyeballing this, I'd put it in no consensus or relist territory. "I don't want a bot to replace 16k uses" is not a terribly strong rationale at TFD, which does that all the time. "This is extra complexity" isn't a terribly strong rationale the other direction (for this case at least). Having two separate templates use the same module under the hood means there's functionally no code duplication. And that's the entire lot of the set here. There is a good argument for deletion here which is that having the separate template is "redundant to a better-designed template." (one supports parameters, one does not), but this wasn't made or weighed explicitly. Izno (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- The wrapper supports all parameters as far as I know? Are there parameters it should be able to use that don´t work? Fram (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- That's a misread of the point I tried to make that could have been made; instead, it was just "template A works with no parameters, template B works with 1 parameter" to achieve identical functionality, and we typically tend to prefer templates with more functionality per template than less. But as I said, a discussion point for the TFD to have decided (or decide). Izno (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- The wrapper supports all parameters as far as I know? Are there parameters it should be able to use that don´t work? Fram (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse I agree with the closer that supporters of deleting the template have the stronger policy-based arguments, despite the number of !votes in the discussion. Editors arguing to keep the template suggested that a change would be cosmetic and there are 16k changes needed. These arguments are usually not strong arguments to make in a deletion discussion. In contrast, editors supporting replacing the template pointed to depreciating redundant wrappers. --Enos733 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse (uninvolved) - Per WP:NOTAVOTE. I think that the closer made the right call, as there was a valid argument for modernization of the template in favor, and some weak arguments against that were countered by the final comment in which assistance with a bot to make the changes was offered, leaving seemingly little downside to modifying the template. Why not allowing a bot to make the changes would be bad to the point of overriding the benefits of modernization of the template was not fully expounded upon. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn. The closer said
...deprecating redundant wrappers to reduce maintenance complexity
. ... what maintenance complexity? No one in the discussion made a direct reference to maintenance or maintenance complexity. It isn't clear what this maintenance complexity might be from the discussion or in general. The template source code is{{#invoke:Authority control | authorityControl | show=arts }}. The template reached a stage where there's nothing to maintain. The close resembles a supervote. There was not a consensus for the challenged outcome.—Alalch E. 21:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)- @Alalch E.: My !vote did specifically say 'it just adds extra complexity that can confuse editors'. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. I missed your comment when reading the discussion in order to comment in this DRV. Would it be fair for me to say that the complexity you refer to is the situation of an editor being unsure about which template to pick, and not a "maintenance complexity" as in a need to synchronize the two templates if one changes, etc.? —Alalch E. 18:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Alalch E.: Broadly yes, the complexity is mostly on the user side rather than the maintenance side, since this template is basically a redirect to the Lua template with a manually defined parameter. However, there is also documentation maintenance complexity here since Template:Authority control and the module supports more parameters that aren't currently documented (but do work) via Template:Authority control (arts), such as the 'suppress' parameter, and this template blocks the choice of multiple whitelists, which also isn't currently documented. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- "For a description of other parameters, please read Template:Authority control/doc." is already present in the documentation of this template, and can be given more prominence if needed. "and this template blocks the choice of multiple whitelists" would only apply if you needed arts and lighthouse at the same time at the moment... Are there other combinations it doesn't allow? Fram (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Alalch E.: Broadly yes, the complexity is mostly on the user side rather than the maintenance side, since this template is basically a redirect to the Lua template with a manually defined parameter. However, there is also documentation maintenance complexity here since Template:Authority control and the module supports more parameters that aren't currently documented (but do work) via Template:Authority control (arts), such as the 'suppress' parameter, and this template blocks the choice of multiple whitelists, which also isn't currently documented. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. I missed your comment when reading the discussion in order to comment in this DRV. Would it be fair for me to say that the complexity you refer to is the situation of an editor being unsure about which template to pick, and not a "maintenance complexity" as in a need to synchronize the two templates if one changes, etc.? —Alalch E. 18:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Alalch E.: My !vote did specifically say 'it just adds extra complexity that can confuse editors'. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn. NACs are allowed because they help. When an NAC causes more trouble, it was not helpful. In hindsight, the close is an obviously BADNAC. The close was a close call. It could have easily been called “no consensus”. The closer should convert their closing rationale to a !vote. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse This user does close things from time to time, but I would have closed it as replace - the votes to keep were "it's too much of a pain to change" which isn't really policy based. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Neither are the votes to replaces because "it's too hard to maintain", which simply isn't true... Fram (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Also this misstates my argument - my argument is that the value gained from doing this replacement is less than the effort it would take to do, not that the effort is in an absolute sense too much. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Neither are the votes to replaces because "it's too hard to maintain", which simply isn't true... Fram (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Relist or overturn to consensus. Not a BADNAC, just not an accurate read of consensus per Izno and Alalch E. I didn't find the arguments on either side particularly strong either, emphasised by lack of counter-arguments overall, and thus the balance of opinion being roughly the same with matching numerical weight. I therefore can't relate to endorsers assigning significantly higher weight to deprecate/replace in order to ascertain consensus. CNC (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Battle of Vinland (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Was not originally part of the deletion discussion, but added late into the discussion. Open to recreation instead with different contents. This was an dab page to two pages that both redirected to Vinland. A battle in Vinland is already specified at these points in the Vinland article. The existence of these sentences where never brought up in the deletion discussion. Saga of the greenlanders: "The explorers were then attacked in force, but managed to survive with only minor casualties by retreating to a well-chosen defensive position, a short distance from their base. One of the local people picked up an iron axe, tried it, and threw it away." This is also mentioned in chapter 6 of Saga of the greenlanders, https://www.snerpa.is/net/isl/graens.htm , in Icelandic. I was also able to find another battle in chapter 4, although that one was started with an ambush by the explorers. Saga of Erik the Red: "One day, the local traders were frightened by the sudden arrival of the Greenlanders' bull, and they stayed away for three weeks. They then attacked in force, but the explorers managed to survive with only minor casualties, by retreating inland to a defensive position, a short distance from their camp." This is also mentioned in chapter 11 of Saga of Erik the Red, https://www.snerpa.is/net/isl/eirik.htm , in Icelandic My proposal is to have the page as an redirect to Vinland#The Vinland Sagas, which is the parent chapter for both of the quotes. Snævar (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
