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.
Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:
{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 November 6}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 6}}</noinclude>
If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 6|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
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:
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.)
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".
This AFD was closed by Seraphimblade (who I note declares themself to be a 'deletionist') as 'delete'. I !voted 'keep', and think (naturally) that the close was bad. Whilst NOTAVOTE, it was 7 keep to 6 delete. At best it should have been 'no consensus'. However, I have neither the time nor energy to fight over that (although if others do...) - instead, I have requested that Seraphimblade restore the article and draftify it, so that further sources can be found and the article improved, although they have refused to do so. Accordingly, I request that the article is draftified as an ATD. GiantSnowman12:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand why we're here, @GiantSnowman:. If you're not asking for the closure to be amended, why open a DRV? If all you wish to do is search for more sources and check the deleted version to see if you have new ones, you can already do that; you're an admin, you can see the deleted version. For the record, though, I !voted "delete", and I believe the closure is valid; assessing consensus isn't a vote-counting exercise, and the evidence doesn't support the "keep" !votes. Vanamonde (Talk)12:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking the closure to be amended to 'draftify' rather than 'delete', which is an WP:ATD and should have been considered by the closing admin before closure and also after I raised it with them. I'm also not going anywhere near restoring it myself etc. to avoid accusations of being INVOLVED. GiantSnowman12:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse delete close but allow recreation as draft (involved, voted keep). While both sides made solid, policy based reasoning, delete seemed gain some level of consensus after JoelleJay's source analysis. Either "delete" or "no consensus" weould have been reasonable closes. Draftify was obviously not considered because nobody suggested that during the AFD. However, there is clearly support for this article and some level of sourcing such that there is a chance it can be improved via the AFC process so that should be allowed if GiantSnowman or another user wants to make a good faith attempt at this. FrankAnchor13:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - half of the participants thought the coverage was SIGCOV and the other half didn't. Siding with the delete camp is a judgment call which does not accurately reflect the outcome of the discussion. (For what it's worth, but not to re-litigate the AfD, I've looked at some of the available coverage and did a source search and I think deletion here was a mistake.) SportingFlyerT·C14:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. One participant brings up sources, two participants (and the nominator) subsequently agree in their characterization as "transfer/injury/suspension coverage", with one of the two claiming that the sources contain SIGCOV but does not identify where the SIGCOV actually lies and evades the question when asked, a subsequent participant just says "passes GNG with significant coverage" bypassing the preceding discussion in what amounts to a WP:JN-type comment, followed by another participant's notoriously poor argument in the form of "there are multiple online sources" which also bypasses the relevant issue. Then on the seventh day, JoelleJay posts a source analysis, one participant agrees with it, and the discussion is relisted. Consensus leaning delete at that point. After the relist there's another explicit endorsement of the source analysis. Then, there is an attempt to appeal to WP:BASIC but this is countered with the argument that trivial coverage is not the type of coverage that may be combined to show that there is coverage across sources equivalent to significant coverage (it should be fragmentary non-trivial coverage, that's the point of BASIC), and from early on in the discussion there has been rough agreement that the coverage is trivial, rememember: "transfer/injury/suspension coverage". Then there is a protracted thread with less then relevant complaints from the keep side such as "now it is not two sentences but three sentences" and the "clearly made zero effort to locate sources before nominating" ad hominem, and contemplation on whether the case for deletion is tied to racism. Followd by a "clearly notable" WP:JN-type comment. Consensus leaning delete. Then second relist followed by one keep and two delete !votes. So there was rough consensus to delete.—Alalch E.16:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Breaking down the !votes by camp, I get:
Keepers
Giant Snowman, who leads with an utterly needless personal attack on the nominator, so zero weight, and consider personal attack warning.
Gidonb, says the sources are good enough but doesn't explain why (WP:JN), and is fully countered by JoelleJay. Oh, and also, WP:MERCY. Relatively low weight.
Ortizesp, says the sources are good enough but doesn't explain why (WP:JN), and is fully countered by JoelleJay. Relatively low weight.
Govvy, admits that the sources are weak but thinks enough of them should count (WP:LOTSOFSOURCES). Relatively low weight.
Frankanchor, says the sources are good enough but doesn't explain why (WP:JN), and is fully countered by JoelleJay. Does creditably make an attempt to link that position to policy, but subsequently slaughtered by JoelleJay's point immediately below. Relatively low weight.
Eluchil404, says the sources are good enough but doesn't explain why (WP:JN), and is fully countered by JoelleJay. Relatively low weight.
Deleters
Dougal18, challenges all the routine coverage (WP:MILL). Normal weight.
JoelleJay, careful and detailed source analysis that sets out full reasoning and bluelinks relevant policies. A truckload of weight.
Let'sRun, says the sources aren't independent but doesn't elaborate (WP:JNN), and that view falls apart because the AfD unearthed genuinely independent if trivial sources. Then supports JoelleJay (WP:PERX). Not much weight.
Vanamonde93, criticises the keepers and supports JoelleJay (WP:PERX). Not much weight.
FenixFeather, supports JoelleJay (WP:PERX). Not much weight.
I note that this is a biography of a living person, so we've got to be extra-careful about sources. I conclude that JoelleJay's contribution fully overwhelms the rest.
Finally, I want to deplore the inclusionist tendency to attack nominators. This is happening more and more, I've noticed, and I'm starting to wonder if there might be scope for an arbcom case about it.—S MarshallT/C19:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Describing something as a "weak and lazy nomination" is not a "personal attack". I was criticising the edit, not the editor. You've also mis-counted the !votes on each side and missed editors out. GiantSnowman09:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine if it worked like that! Imagine if you could say whatever you liked about an edit. "That was a stupid and arrogant edit!" "Your edits are pointless and annoying." "What an ignorant edit." Hardly compliant with WP:UNCIVIL, is it? I expect that a non-sysop would have been blocked for the behaviour you showed in that AFD.—S MarshallT/C11:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, aside from the fact that WP:ATA is an essay, that's a very odd interpretation of Per X comments. A !vote that is "per X" should be given exactly the same weight as X's !vote. If X's is a strong comment, the Per X comment gets considerable weight; if it is weak, it gets less. Joelle Jay analyzed the sources comprehensively; when I endorse that analysis, nobody's interests are served by me regurgitating it instead of citing it. We expect editors to make strong evidence-based arguments in consensus-building discussions; we do not expect them to make novel or unique ones, and endorsing a previous strong argument does not in and of itself determine the weight your comment should get. Vanamonde (Talk)12:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well. To an extent this is a distinction without a difference, because you (both of you) and I agree that JoelleJay's contribution is decisive; but I'm interested in continuing this conversation because I'm interested in how we weight discussion contributions.On ATA -- I feel that there are essays and essays. Some essays are widely cited and closely followed, and others little known and mostly disregarded. I feel that ATA is the former -- an essay that enjoys widespread community support. Yes, okay, ATA is pretty incoherent and at heart it's just a bucket list of things that some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say in deletion debates. But it does neatly encapsulate what the community thinks about many things.On PERX -- as soon as we say that "I think the same as %_editor" gets full weight, we're turning the discussion into a poll. Aren't we? And when we do that we encourage sockpuppetry. Our rule (policy) on this is WP:DETCON, and I'm sure you're both very familiar with it, but for the benefit of onlookers it says Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. How does PERX add to the quality of the arguments?—S MarshallT/C14:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: Replying in the same spirit; I don't think PERXs get "normal" weight, and to that extent I actually disagree with Alalch E. above. I give PERXs the same weight as the !vote they are endorsing. In this case, I would give "per Joelle Jay" full weight (well, you could have guessed that); but I would also give FrankAnchor and GiantSnowman the same weight, because their !votes are based on the same evidence. Under the present circumstances, I would give both those !votes identical lowish weight (because those sources were convincingly rebutted), but in a hypothetical scenario in which JoelleJay hadn't debunked those sources, it would be substantial weight. I would also not downweight a comment based on the presence of a personal attack, though I might independently consider sanctions for it. I fully agree that assessing consensus is more than vote-counting; my closures are quite frequently different from what you would expect based on just numbers. However, you can't close based on only strength of arguments either; because if that was all that mattered, there would be no purpose in participating in a discussion if the argument I believe in had already been made, and that's clearly not what we want. When there is substantial disagreement, what I do is to assign weight and then see how the weighted numbers shake out. At AfD in particular, I have seen numerically even AfDs in which the "keep, meets GNG" arguments have been convincingly refuted by source analyses (such as this AfD); I've seen ones in which the source analyses are clearly applying an absurdly high standard, or have not taken into account newly found sources, or in which "delete" opinions are not based in policy; and I've seen ones in which both sides have differing, but reasonable, interpretations of what constitutes SIGCOV. I close those delete, keep, and no consensus, respectively. TL;DR: I judge consensus based on what the split looks like in weighted !votes, and consequently giving PERXs appropriate (not necessarily full) weight is important. Vanamonde (Talk)16:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't. As a first approximation, that page is correct, and it also isn't the place to get into the nuances of determining consensus. Quality of the arguments is primary; numbers come into play when quality is genuinely comparable on both sides of a dispute (spoiler alert, it rarely is). In relation to my first point, though; I think it makes far more sense to say that a PERX argument has the same quality as X's argument, than to say a priori that it has low quality. Vanamonde (Talk)17:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing in my $0.02 totally unsolicited here, I wrote some extended notes regarding balancing strength v support in my close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of atrocities during the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. Admittedly this was a different situation (in this one here, I tend to agree that the GNG arguments were just about totally disproven), but there may be some relevancy in the comments there. PERX is relevant when an argument isn't disproven and you need to assess its support, but by its very nature it doesn't advance a different argument to what it is referencing. If the original argument gets significantly disproven, so does the PERX by extension. Daniel (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not usually interested in amending essays, as the acrimony/benefit is not helpful; but I would suggest it be changed, yes. It already acknowledges the essence of what Daniel and I are saying in reference to nominator arguments; the same logic needs to be extended to well-reasoned other comments. Vanamonde (Talk)10:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acceptable edit. A PerX !vote May be sufficient. It adds weight to the original !vote, but it most certainly does NOT deserve the SAME weight as the original !vote. Mere repetition carries less weight than the original thought through !vote. Assigning simple additivity to PERXs would be vote counting and poor closing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's contrary to both current practice and common sense. Sometimes a previous participant has said what needs to be said about sources. A novel rebuttal is not only unnecessary, it's impossible. Vanamonde (Talk)07:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think so. I’ve never seen anyone making your claims.
A novel, good, argument carries a lot of weight in a debate. Adding four “per him” does not add up to equal to five different novel good arguments.
Per X is a good thing to do when you want to register your review and back what you think is an already winning argument. If there is no single winning argument, a vote is stronger than Per X if it adds something, anything, as to why, for them, X’s argument is strong.
Sometimes there’s a weak, as in dubious, !vote cast, and a bunch of driveby !voters !voting Per X do not give much confidence that they’ve spent anytime reviewing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised and intrigued to find that experienced Wikipedians differ so much on a point that seems so foundational to how we make decisions.—S MarshallT/C10:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At User talk:MBisanz/Archive 16#bare supports (Jan 2013) is a crumb of a record relating to discussions with User:MBisanz, he being an expert closer, albeit erring in the side of brevity in my opinion. The question was on bare support votes at RfA, which I connected to bare votes at XfD, including no rationale, and “per nom” rationales. An issue is the practice of expectation of justification being higher for “Oppose” or “Delete” than for “Support” or “Keep”. I think we agreed that the community consensus is that bare votes get some weight, but less weight than a well articulated !vote. I think this is right, and I think it reflects real world debates. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RFA is also different in that the scope of discussion is the entire record of an editor, typically consisting of 10k+ edits. The scope of the typical AfD discussion is limit to a much smaller pool of evidence, and there generally isn't very much to say about it, regardless of whether you believe it to be sufficient. The AfD we are discussing, which is not atypical of AfDs, boils down to whether 10 links provide SIGCOV. There isn't anything substantive to add to a comprehensive source analysis, and a PERX that refers to such an analysis should be given equal weight to it. Otherwise, why bother participating after an analysis has been done? More generally, the emphasis on novelty is all wrong. "I see no evidence that this topic meets SIGCOV" carries full weight at AfD until and unless someone provides evidence of SIGCOV: conversely, "This topic meets GNG because of the following three sources" also carries full weight until someone convincingly rebuts those sources. A PERX of one of these two arguments is entirely equivalent to repeating it, and gets the same weight, because generally there is nothing more to say. There is no novel argument to be made in those circumstances. Vanamonde (Talk)13:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve lost the esoteric line of thought that saw me challenge the wording of one of Vanamonde’s posts here. All I’m seeing now is that is that JoelleJay did an excellent source analysis with a compelling conclusion for “delete”, and that her analysis was hacked and amplified by Vanamonde and FenixFeather. GiantSnowman was rebuffed. All other !votes, keep and delete, were weak compared to JoelleJay, Vanamonde, FenixFeather and GiantSnowman. They are stronger because they addressed specific points on specific sources. Weighing !votes by quality of argument, I see a consensus to delete. Someone wanting to try again, for longer, in draftspace is not a challenge to the consensus to deleted, and should have been allowed on request, and should be allowed now. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus—the vote clearly showed nothing close to a consensus about this deletion, and indeed leaned in favor of keeping the article in place by virtue of the vote itself. As mentioned above, beyond the vote, any inference of consensus for deletion is a wholly subjective judgment call. I would weakly support a "draftification," as it were, but I also agree with the majority of "Keepers" above in identifying the existing coverage as SIGCOV, even if on the weaker end of the spectrum. There was no clear reason to act on the deletion, and it should be reversed. Anwegmann (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. I can't say I enjoyed it (or this review -- I have never submitted one) yet I exposed the visual analysis to be factually incorrect while also trying to be as little confrontational about this as possible. Before I did that -with huge hesitance- multiple folks already seemed impressed by the exes and vees. Here as well. Nevertheless the results were balanced between keeps and deletes with the keepsayers having factually the strongest argument. Then the closer slammed their entire body on the scale. I am so hesitant with confronting people that I later made all my source points in the article. Can we get that up? To call my hesitance to confront people MERCY (above) is revolting but sometimes it just is what it is. You have to be assertive at all times at WP and some people are not as much built that way. gidonb (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call your "hesitance to confront people" MERCY. You said Nom, please do not nominate footballers who have played so many professional games!, and that's what I called WP:MERCY. I don't agree that you displayed any hesitance at all to confront people in that debate. You apologised for confronting them and then you confronted them very hard indeed.—S MarshallT/C20:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's an abundance of AfDs and that has a toll on work in the article space. People submit AfDs with hardly any before. That's what the comment gently referred to. My position is and was that Jallo meets the GNG. No MERCY needed. The how is in the article but that is hidden now. Giant appearantly tried to get that up to no avail. I had not seen that the article was deleted until I received a message about a DRV and was surprised to find my name mentioned here, while distorting my position and work. My comment above seeks to correct that while explaining why the closing decision is unjustified. It was not my choice to submit a DRV or AfD. gidonb (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[11][12][13][14][15] all look good to me. One's an interview but there's plenty of additional coverage of him that's not in the article - search most of these websites and other articles will come up - and the ones which don't necessarily qualify as significant coverage are still reliable sources. [16] is light but there's a video I found of him in another search where this made national television. SportingFlyerT·C18:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly didn't properly interact with any of them, then. The first one isn't the best one, but I reviewed them in order. The second talks about his performances and contract status. The second is beyond a mere transfer announcement as it discusses his possible landing places and his role on his previous team. The next one is a bit transactional as it discusses how he re-signs. But most importantly, this isn't the extent of coverage - there's plenty of coverage. For instance both of these articles are directly on him, from just one website: [17][18] - which is exactly what you would expect of a professional football player in one of the top leagues in the world! Often we argue about over only a handful of sources for notability, but Jallo has dozens. SportingFlyerT·C01:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've linked the same article twice. The tiny teaspoon of biographical information in it is his age (22 at 18 November 2011) and the descriptor Syrian/Aramaic (presumably ethnic origin/birth tongue). It then explains that he's a substitute, standing in for one match to replace a full team member who's injured. How is that not routine WP:MILL coverage of a football match?—S MarshallT/C07:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Draftification as a reasoable AtD. As a participant in the AfD I don't really trust myself to evaluate consensus. When I first looked at it, before I did my own evaluation and voted, I thought it was leaning towards Keep but probably not clear enough for a NAC. But S Marshall makes a reasonable claim that the full discussion leans towards delete. <Shrug>. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse,
10:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC) on several readthroughs, I’ve come around to seeing that the close was not discretion, but the correct reading of a consensus to delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
… correct application of admin discretion. Obviously, too many sources are too poor. The challenge here requires a more thorough source analysis, and DRV is not the best location to do this, being too-high profile, and time-limited. Instead, send to draftspace for a WP:THREE source analysis. Proponents carry the onus to identify the best three sources. While agreeing with Marshall on the unacceptable attacking of anyone, I do criticise the nominator for the perfunctory nomination rationale. Poor rationals are one of the root causes for difficult discussions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose “overturn to no consensus” and undeletion to mainspace. Although the sources weren’t obviously and conclusively shown to not meet the GNG, the substance of the criticism of the sources was strong, and the defence of the sources was very weak. A thorough analysis of sources takes time and space. Further analysis should be done in draftspace, removing low quality sources, analysing what’s left, with a presumption that the proponents have to demonstrate two independent secondary sources that cover the topic directly and to some depth. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I request that the article is draftified as an ATD. GiantSnowman 12:47, 23 December 2023
I support this request. This request was put to the deleting admin at User talk:Seraphimblade#Gaby Jallo AFD. I think Seraphimblade was unreasonable in rejecting the request, noting that the deletion was contested, WP:HEY was claimed by someone, and there were lots of sources. Draftspace is a good place to filter sources for quality, for a second look at whether the GNG is met. After draftification, GiantSnowman should not be allowed to unilaterally mainspace it within six months, out of respect for the close at AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn no AFDs are not a vote, but I feel that the administrator inserted their own opinion in closing the disccusion, that and what is written on their user page gives me cause for concern. I do not find JoelleJay's constant hounding of !keep voters on this and plenty of other discussions, especially on football biographies, to be helpful. Despite what S Marshall says I do not find that JolleJay "slaughtered" the keep !votes, rather they just seems from my view to cherry pick to find something wrong with them. All that said I do not have a problem with the article being draftified and as I !voted keep in this AFD I'm probably a biased participant, and I mean no ill will towards the users I've mentioned here. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you enable the local popups gadget. The popups in base MediaWiki that anons and registered, non-gadget-enabling users get only work for links to mainspace. The more general advice is to use {{they|JoelleJay}} and its sibling templates. —Cryptic23:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation with no prejudice against speedy renomination. The closing admin made it clear in their closing note that their decision was effectively based on the view of a single AfD participant, namely, JoelleJay. That may have very well been the correct thing to do. The analysis done by S Marshall above certainly supports such a decision, and I am not here to contest it. Thankfully, we do not need to adjudicate on whether this was a correct reading of consensus or not. All we need to do is recognize the fact that this AfD was closed based on the opinion of one participant other than the nom, and as such, qualifies as a WP:NOQUORUM closure, despite the numerous--correctly or not WP:DISCARDed--!votes. This means that the resultant deletion must be seen as a WP:SOFTDELETE, equivalent to an expired PROD, which allows for immediate recreation/undeletion. Once undeleted, if the appellant in this DRV still wishes to draftify the page while they search for better sourcing, I don't think anyone here will object. I certainly hope they choose that route, seeing the poor sourcing the deleted article suffered from, and knowing it will likely be instantly renominated if left in main namespace. Since the appellant specifically requested it, I'll be happy with a Draftify outcome. Owen×☎02:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse based on the analysis of AFD !votes by User:S Marshall and the analysis of sources by User:JoelleJay, and pending a request for temporary undelete. S Marshall has explained why the closer could reasonably give much greater weight to JoelleJay's Delete !vote than to anything else. A close of No Consensus would also have been a reasonable reading. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:S Marshall - What are you proposing that ArbCom should do about insults in AFDs? I have three times in the past five years asked them to extend ArbCom discretionary sanctions, now known as contentious topics, to disruptive conduct in Deletion Discussions, and they have declined to do that three times. I still think that deletion discussions should be a contentious topic, and that expedited remedies should be available for incivility (and jerk-like behavior). Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Poor conduct in AfDs in general is definitely an issue, but to my eye it doesn't rise to the level of Arbcom involvement. I think there's a specific problem with sports inclusionists. If you nominate a sportsperson's article for deletion, they take it very personally indeed. They have various behaviours of the kind you saw in the AfD we're considering here --- rallying round, confrontations, attacks, anything to get the nasty source-focused person away from their precious articles.—S MarshallT/C11:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So GiantSnowman's discription of an nomination as "lazy" rises to WP:UNCIVIL but S Marshall making blanket statments on editors who work on sports-related articles (by the wonderfully vague pronoun "they") as crybabies who take everything personally doesn't? To be fair, while heated, I don't see any violation of WP:CIVIL in the AFD and certainly nothing which rises to the level of being a blockable offense. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also can say, reading between the lines of "sports inclusionists," that GiantSnowman is not someone who is quick to keep an article at AfD. Plus this player appeared in one of the top domestic leagues in the world over the course of several seasons and received a normal amount of Dutch-language coverage for someone who did so. Significant coverage differs from country to country. It's not as if we're trying to include some youth athlete here. SportingFlyerT·C18:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a strangely and unnecessarily "partisan" blanket statement that has very little meaning here by S Marshall. I wonder who's being confrontational and "attacking" others with differing opinions at this point...As something of an outsider to this, I find the amount of vitriol here alarming and off-putting, not to mention unproductive. Anwegmann (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and support draftification. AFDs are not a vote, and it was within the closer's discretion to close as "delete" or "no consensus." On balance, I do think individuals who made a comment supporting deletion had the stronger argument as that argument was not sufficiently refuted by individuals supporting keeping the article. --Enos733 (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion was procedurally within discretion, and there's nothing in the sources, article, afd, or this drv to suggest it wasn't correct on the merits. No reason to object to draftification, but it'd be a waste of the requester's time without substantially better sources; rewording the prose or presenting more sources of similar triviality won't save this from a G4. —Cryptic00:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that you can pretty easily write a C-class article on Jallo using the available sources - if you search any of the websites mentioned in the AfD, there's more coverage of him directly on him, but none of it is the classical "American feature story" that I think people are expecting to see here. We're excluding someone who seems clearly notable enough to have been written about by multiple outlets on the grounds that half the participants didn't think it was significant enough. SportingFlyerT·C22:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Accepting JoelleJay's source analysis requires accepting JoelleJay's interpretation of interviews as primary sources (they can be, but aren't necessarily, especially when published in RS'es) and what ROUTINE coverage means in terms of sports coverage. Understanding that any source analysis is colored by the policy perspectives of its author, any closer should acknowledge the antecedent opinions. To put it bluntly, "that's not SIGCOV" gets too much credence from a lot of admins. More importantly Seraphimblade's refusal to just draftify the article for potential improvement is something that should not be tolerated. Draft space is cheap, self-cleaning after six months, and no one has argued the article under consideration violated G10-11-12 ("bad content") rather than simply being on the losing end of a notability discussion. For one admin to refuse another's reasonable request calls into question the neutrality of the close in the first place. Whether personality or topic based, admins have an obligation to act beyond possible reproach when dealing with affected articles at AfD. Back in the dawn of time when I was a working admin, I made a habit of doing uncontroversial deletions and staying far away from controversial AfDs. (For anyone who might care, I have 19,259 deletions, just under 50k edits across both accounts, and haven't held the mop in 10 years) The talk page discussion does not typify collegiality or working toward creating encyclopedic content, but really comes across as "You do the work up front and then I'll consider restoring the article." This, in my mind, is a more important problem than whether no consensus or delete were within administrator discretion. Jclemens (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well said! But again, even if one accepts Seraphimblade's and JoelleJay's interpretation of SIGCOV, the endorsed result would be a soft delete, based on WP:NOQUORUM. If there was a consensus there, it was between the nom, JoelleJay and the closing admin, after discarding every other !vote. That said, I agree that an overturn would send a stronger message than a mere draftification. Owen×☎21:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NOQUORUM: If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor and with no one opposing deletion. Neither of those criteria seem to be met in this AFD, so I do not think NOQUORUM applies. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; you can't have it both ways. If you discard all but one of the views when closing an AfD (including all the Keep !votes), you can't then turn around and claim it was widely participated. The extent of participation is measured based on valid, non-discarded views. We do this every day with canvassed votes.
If, on the other hand, you claim that the Keep !votes were incorrectly discarded, then we're back to an overturn for no-consensus. Those !votes can't be counted for quorum while being ignored for their view. Owen×☎11:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are listed as primary sources at OR, and what the interviewee says is never independent of the interviewee regardless of where it's published. JoelleJay (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They may be listed as primary sources, but that doesn't change the fact that a high-quality curated interview is a secondary source. Only the direct quotes are primary sources, and a good, in-depth "interview" is much more than a bare regurgitation of what two people said. If you look at what OR says, it actually says including (depending on context) reviews and interviews, so saying OR says interviews are primary sources is an oversimplification of the actual policy. Jclemens (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which source are we talking about here? (Link would be great.) Interview transcripts never pass GNG. Articles based on an interview do not usually pass GNG unless they are quite long, in depth, and are not just a collection of quotes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the commentary contributed by the interviewer may be secondary and independent, and I evaluated the sources with that in mind. What you said was they can be, but aren't necessarily, especially when published in RS'es, which implies that the reliability of the venue where the interview is published factors into whether its content is primary or secondary (why would we even be considering interviews in non-RS anyway?). There were only two sources I called "interviews", neither of which I characterized as "primary", so I don't understand why you are claiming my delete argument (partially) rested on accepting JoelleJay's interpretation of interviews as primary sources. The 5th source from my first comment does have some interviewer statements interspersed among the quotes, but these mostly appear to be pre-summaries of the quotes, often in present-tense and including Jallo's point of view ("Jallo is not surprised...", "He prefers a longer stay...", "The defender also expects his team...", "the happy Jallo looks back."). I judged the material linked to these comments to be too derivative of the interview to be independent, an interpretation that seems generally consistent with what other users (such as @SmokeyJoe and @Novem Linguae) have expressed here. JoelleJay (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with JoelleJay.
It is almost impossible, although not impossible, to extract independent secondary source content about the interviewee from an interview with the interviewee.
The source typing of secondary vs primary, is usually irrelevant to the question of satisfying the GNG.
When it comes to some interspersed interviewer comments, it’s a tough ask for these to be significant (though interviews can be interviewer monologues). SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The interspersed interviewer comments, indicating that the subjects' claims are not being repeated verbatim and uncritically, renders the entire interview an independent secondary source. When done by an outlet with a track record of reliability, it's going to be an independent, non-trivial, reliable source. Have you never seen an in-depth interview like this? It's qualitatively different than a simple back-and-forth. Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "entire interview" does not become an independent secondary source; the quotes/summarized comments of the interviewee are not magically transformed into someone else saying those things. If the actual I&S content is significant enough then that counts as one of the GNG sources, but if it's only SIGCOV if you add in the content from the interviewee, the source does not count towards GNG. Distributing facts gleaned from an interview across both direct quotes and summaries of quotes doesn't make the info independent, and the interviewer stating his in-person observations of the interviewee during the interview is still primary. JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman, I've seen you around for years and you are generally a solid editor. Your behavior in the AfD and here are not up to the standards I'd expect of you. We would all appreciate it if you were more civil going forward (and frankly I think the lack of civility is self-defeating).
A request for a draft by an editor in good standing of something that might well be notable shouldn't be declined even if they have been being rude.
The discussion was split, both sides had reasonable arguments. There was no argument on the delete side strong enough for there to be a consensus for deletion (including JoelleJay). It was a bad close IMO and should be overturned.
On the underlying matter of notability (which is relevant at DRV when dealing with a split discussion and doubly so when dealing with a BLP): The sources are, IMO, over the bar, even for a BLP. They aren't stellar, and I can understand where the delete !voters came from, but we have enough to write an article about the subject and I see nothing that makes me feel WP:BLP requires otherwise.
Honestly it doesnt sound all that sincere and I dont appreciate the personal attacks at afd and the message left on my talk page and I quote - "Your AFDs of Simon Amin and Gaby Jallo are both seriously ill thought out. I suggest you withdraw." Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted text is anything but uncivil. By suggesting an edit is "ill thought out" it presumes that the other editor could have done better, but failed to in that instance. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What personal attacks Simione001? I noted that other neutral editors here have criticised your AFD rationale as well. They've just done so slightly politer than I did. GiantSnowman11:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GS, you mostly have gone after actions, not people. But you could do so in more polite ways. I know some people view doing so as "weak" or "not being a straight shooter", but politeness is what greases the wheels and keeps this place functional. Simione001, you are very much going after a person, not an action. Please stop. Both of you: this case is quite borderline. I personally think this is over the bar for keeping with some margin, but I'm on the more inclusionist side of things. Other folks who I respect think this is a delete case. It's the corner cases that generate the most heat, and it would be best if you both realize this isn't a black-and-white case. Hobit (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: There is a clear different between "per X" and "I've done the research independently and I agree with X." The latter carries more weight simply because it is double-checking, giving greater support to the conclusion being the correct one, whereas "per X" gives no indication that the editor actually checked anything. It's better that we have multiple people checking for themselves than that we have one person doing all the research and the rest playing follow-the-leader.
For a specific example: Contrary to S Marshall's analysis Special:Diff/1191068224 is not a mere "per X" because although the editor agrees with a previous editor, it is clear from that opinion that xe has actually gone and looked at what sources are cited by the Dutch Wikipedia and evaluated their provenances, and is the first person in the entire discussion to even discuss their provenances.
Special:Diff/1190919018, not listed in S Marshall's analysis, is not a "per X" either. But the problem with it is that once people have actually started discussing sources in detail, it is not a weighty contribution that helps the process to just make general statements and fail to address the specifics of the sources at hand. One has to raise one's game at that point, and that rationale did not.
Comment I'm not going to second-guess the closure, I'm just here to support a closer restoring a deleted article to Draft space where an editor can work on improving an article and addressing the problems others found with it. That doesn't seem controversial to me when the editor making that request is a long-time editor. LizRead!Talk!08:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support draftify. Big picture, why are we here? To build consensus as we build an encyclopedia that provides reliable information. The article is a BLP, it needs a lot more work to justify existence in mainspace, and would likely benefit from more and higher quality secondary sources if available. Send it back to draft and it will either be improved or abandoned and deleted after 6 months. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - In no way could this AFD of a player with sources and over 100 games in fully pro Dutch league be interpreted as a "consensus" to delete. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. For the reasons explained by SMarshall, I believe that Seraphimblade's assessment and weighing of the arguments made in the AfD was a valid exercise of a closer's discretion. Several people above who would overturn the closure mistake AfD for a vote. I also agree that GiantSnowman's personal attacks on the nominator are inappropriate, and I would deny this review request for this reason alone. As regards draftification, I am generally opposed to the concept of draft space because either something belongs in Wikipedia or it does not (although I'm in a minority, it appears), and I do not see the point in draftification until somebody can show convincing WP:THREE sources establishing notability. Sandstein 09:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After a consensus to delete, see the point of draftificationas providing a place to do what WP:THREE advises. Cut the weak sources. Show what material is supported by the three best sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Rafat Abu Hilal – Relisted. Opinions are split between endorse and relist. This means that we don't have consensus in this DRV, which gives me as closer discretion to relist the AfD. I choose to do so, given that it received only three rather perfunctory opinions, and was not previously relisted. Under these circumstances, it is likely that a relist will lead to a clearer consensus. Sandstein 09:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
As mentioned in my AfD nom, this person doesn't have any form of WP:SIGCOV. In fact, no facts are alleged about him except that: he was at one point the head of Popular Resistance Committees and that he was killed in Oct 2023. I tried discussing this with the deleting admin twice[19][20] but they didn't respond to me (to be fair they seem really busy). As I mentioned in my AfD, even the article Killing of Rafat Abu Hilal wouldn't meet WP:GNG, so deleting this article (not changing its name) is the only option.
Two of the !votes didn't even address the SIGCOV argument. One !vote claimed there was SIGCOV while providing a single link the subject's own organization (therefore not an WP:INDEPENDENT source) that also doesn't provide SIGCOV.VRtalk20:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry about the lack of responsiveness, VR, that is because I'm very busy but if I had responded in a timely way, we might not be here today. I don't have much to say about this particular discussion and its closure, I weighed the arguments presented and it seemed like there was a rough consensus that SIGCOV did exist and that this was a notable article subject. Thank you for the notification about this discussion, it's appreciated. LizRead!Talk!20:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Even if you ignore the two !votes the nom claims ignored the SIGCOV issue, there would still be no consensus to delete, leaving the result effectively the same. I see no other argument made by the nom to refute the closing decision. The question of Rafat Abu Hilal's notability is one for an AfD or a WP:REFUND, not for DRV. Owen×☎00:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we ignore all three !votes? Two of them don't address the SIGCOV issue at all, and one of them cites a clearly non-WP:INDEPENDENT source that apparently doesn't provide SIGCOV. What baffles me is why we should keep an article on a subject where not a single (independent) RS exists that provides that subject with SIGCOV. If you can find a single such RS, I'll gladly withdraw this DRV.VRtalk01:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC) As OwenX correctly points out below, this is not an AfD and so I'm striking out the part of my comment that was inappropriate. My apologies.[reply]
You ask, Why can't we ignore all three !votes? - why have an AfD at all, if you'll just ignore any opinion that differs from yours? It's important to distinguish between AfD views that are invalid, such as "I like this article", and views that are merely ones you disagree with, such as "Source X provides SIGCOV". The AfD closer has an obligation to ignore invalid views, but they have no obligation to side with you on the interpretation of WP:SIGCOV. Their decision is supposed to reflect the consensus among the valid views, which is what they did in this AfD.
I will not search for RS, because this isn't AfD; it's DRV. DRV is not AfD-take-two. We are not examining the notability of Rafat Abu Hilal here. We are examining the accuracy of interpreting consensus in the AfD. You seem to have the two confused. Owen×☎03:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX: I assure you, I'm not asking you to "ignore any opinion that differs from" mine. I've participated in many AfDs and discussions where the result wasn't what I wished and I'm totally ok with that. I'm only bringing this to DRV because I feel all three votes made arguments that are inconsistent with policy in a rather obvious way. WP:DISCARD says "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy,..."
Two of the !votes don't even mention SIGCOV and cite reasons for keeping that are not found anywhere in policy. This !vote[21] should be discarded because the !voter provides a single link for SIGCOV where the !voter themselves acknowledges that the link is coming from the subject's own organization (something that can be also easily seen if you click on the link). IMO, this obviously contradicts WP:N that requires SIGCOV sources be independent. Is there a way to interpret this !vote as consistent with policy that I may have missed? VRtalk04:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:RENOM suggests that "no consensus" implies a much quicker renomination for AfD than a "keep" result. Given that its an essay, where else can I find more guidance on renominating for AfD? Thanks for your help. VRtalk05:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the death is recent, amidst the fog of war, and taking into account the limited participation in the AfD, I think most would see a renomination in two months as reasonable. Feel free to link to my comment here when you renominate - I'll be happy to accept responsibility for the short delay between the two AfDs. Whoever closes this DRV may also offer useful advice about renominating. Owen×☎11:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have given the keepers much weight. They reduce to a point somewhere between WP:JN and WP:ITSINTHENEWS. What they needed to do was refute VR's points, either by showing that the existing sources were high-quality, independent and reliable, or by providing new sources that meet those criteria. I don't think they did that and I certainly wouldn't have evaluated the sources in the way they did. And, despite its name, WP:BLP applies to the recently-deceased as well as the living, which in my view adds further weight to VR's criticisms of the sources. So I would overturn to no consensus, the practical effect of which would be to allow a speedy renomination.—S MarshallT/C11:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with S Marshall, the quality of the keep !votes is sufficiently poor that either NC or a relist would have been appropriate. A claim that ample SIGCOV exists without providing evidence should be given low weight by itself, but when the !voter provides an example of this coverage that they state is from the subject's own organization, that suggests a lack of awareness of source independence re: notability and calls into question their assessment of all other sources that may have factored into their !vote. EDIT: Relist. JoelleJay (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there wasn't a single delete !vote in the entire discussion, why should the result of the AFD be changed just because people are having issues with it now? If users still feel the article doesn't meet standards they can always renominate it or nominate it for merging etc. This is not the proper avenue. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, all the issues mentioned here were mentioned at the very beginning of the AfD, so I'm not sure why you say "just because people are having issues with it now".VRtalk06:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close of Keep and Tag the article as needing better sources. Keep or Relist were the only valid conclusions that a closer could have reached, and Keep was a valid conclusion. The appellant's concerns about sources are best served by tagging the article and allowing normal editing to improve it. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What tag? The information is verifiable in the usual way. There are citations. Are the sources unreliable? There's no "the sources don't contain significant coverage" tag. There's the notability tag which is the same as that, but it is not appropriate to place a notability tag after an AfD. —Alalch E.11:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with S Marshall but I prefer relisting to overturning to no consensus. Keep was not the correct outcome. The keeps did not argue for notability. They just opposed deletion for non-policy reasons. Comments based on "individual was a leader" and "prominent role" are irrelevant. There is no WP:NLEADER. One mentioned SIGCOV and said There's ample and diverse well-cited WP:SIGCOV of the article subject, but did not identify any significant coverage, and then cited a website that contains everything but significant coverage, while talking about how the individual was "the leader". All of the keeps have zero weight. So despite there being three reponses which would have been enough participation under normal circumstances, under these circumstances it is not enough participation.—Alalch E.12:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist so more arguments can be made and heard. Further to previous comments and the AfD page itself, the close was somewhat rushed. Adding that, according to our article, Abu Hilal was –on one date or another– killed by an Israeli airstrike. Hence the AfD should have also been listed also in the Israel deletion queue, from where perspectives may have differed or not. It's our shared responsibility to check listings, reduce the number of debates, and improve the quality of AfDs. gidonb (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as there was clearly not any consensus to delete. The keep votes were weak but they were not refuted. There was ZERO support of deleting the article outside the nom. This can be renominated after several months (refer to WP:RENOM) if the nominator’s concerns are not addressed in the article. FrankAnchor02:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The company was voted as the best place to work in the UAE and best workplace in the UAE for women. Plenty of credible sources for century financial. it was speedily deleted though the content was new. Francisjk2020 (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC) -->[reply]
I would say it is not to promotional to be here, even if the purpose of the page is promotional. There is a claim of importance, but I would vote delete in an AFD for failing WP:NCORP. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it's that promotional, but it does seem to have a fair number of references to puff pieces/pr. At least one "news" story states "This content comes from KT Engage, the brand marketing unit of Khaleej Times". I can't imagine it would survive an xFD in the current state, would probably be best to get this into draft and work on it to remove such before returning to mainspace. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mess, and partially my fault. The article was previously deleted at AFD last month as "Century Financial". Article was a hodgepodge of promotional claims and paid/PR sources and trivial "recognition". The article was recreated by Francisjk2020 at Century Financial Consultancy and quickly moved to draft by BoraVoro (see Draft:Century Financial Consultancy). I removed some of the more obvious, and at least marked, paid advertorials. The article was then recreated again in mainspace by the same editor. After removing the same promotional material, I noted the prior AFD and and many other PR sources and intended to delete with A11/A5G4. I mistakenly left off the A5G4 from the delete comment (substantially the same, only with less supporting material). The draft is still there to work on, with a comment from me related to the failed validation on the sources. Sam Kuru(talk)12:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a mess. I'm not entirely sure the speedy deletion post-AfD was completely properly done, mostly because it's not clear exactly if this meets G4 or G11. Ignoring that, the problems identified at the November AfD have not been remedied and this should not be in mainspace at this time. SportingFlyerT·C00:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The AfD result was unanimous, and the four views presented were firmly based on policy. The closer did the only possible thing. If new sources turned up since the close, this should be taken to WP:REFUND, but it doesn't sound like there's any basis for that either. Until things change, G4 or SALT as needed. Owen×☎01:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly this article is different from the content in the previous one and the company was recent voted as the best workplace to work in UAE and the best workplace for women. Also, credible sources is not in question as there are plenty of sources available on a daily basis. Like another administrator mentioned this article cannot be categorized as promotional either. I tried WP Refund. Honestly I am not too sure on what basis the article was speedily deleted.(Francisjk2020 (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Question Can someone look at the two articles and assess whether they were substantially identical? I'm thinking if one is G11-able and the re-creation is not, then the re-created article is probably not G4-able. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Daniel. With that, repudiate G4 for the new article, regardless of what else happens to it. I don't have any strong opinion on G11, but it's clearly not substantially the same article. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I second that. I feel both the articles are dissimilar with respect to content and sources. Also a previous admin mentioned current article is not promotional so it can’t be deleted in that category(Francisjk2020 (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Sir the article was deleted under G11 saying it was too promotional but multiple editors has stated that current article is not promotional but neutral.(Francisjk2020 (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Well, this is an interesting one. The re-generated article at Century Financial Consultancy wasn't substantially identical and therefore did not meet the criteria for WP:G4. It's also not hopelessly promotional and therefore did not meet the criteria for WP:G11. This argues for a "restore" outcome.Of course, when we delete an article about a company, creating a new version with new content and a slightly different name and slightly different sources, amounts to an end-run around the previous AfD. We rightly frown on that behaviour. This argues for an "endorse" outcome.The close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century Financial was excellent at the time Liz made it, but with the benefit of hindsight, we now know that User:Antonio Vinzaretti is not in good faith and their encyclopaedic judgment is open to doubt. We would have to weight their !vote at zero, and in my view that places the consensus at the AfD in doubt. I think we have good grounds for reopening the case for another look.Taking into account all these factors, I would prefer the DRV closer to say relist, but as a fresh AfD, for the content at Century Financial Consultancy, with a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century Financial in the nomination statement.—S MarshallT/C11:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The deletion discussion took place in 2009. Since then, this dog has become increasingly notable, including having a standard,[1] gaining full AKC recognition in 2021,[2] and garnering mention in several books and scholarly articles[3][4][5][6][7][8] While I definitely don't think we should restore the original Biewer Terrier article that was deleted in 2009 as it was not of suitable quality, if the article was to be recreated, I propose we restore [this version]. With some cleanup and the addition of the sources I mentioned, I think notability would be demonstrated.
The biggest issue that I forsee is that some publications consider them a subtype of the Yorkshire terrier, a similar issue to the Phalène, which the FCI recognizes as a separate breed from the
Papillon dog but the AKC does not. Annwfwn (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. The linked version is sufficiently different from the version that was redirected in 2009, such that any attempts to delete or re-redirect should take place at a new AFD. Also, at the close of this discussion (and no earlier), Biewer Terrier (dog) should be speedy deleted (probably under G6 or G14). FrankAnchor14:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation nothing wrong with that discussion, but there's no reason a page can't be recreated 15 years later with such clear new information. SportingFlyerT·C00:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation speedily, as in the emerging consensus here should be plenty to ward off G4, should someone be inclined to NOT compare versions (which should, but doesn't always, keep one safe from G4). Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
