User talk:OwenX

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

I thought your comment here was well-expressed and figured I should say so. Arguments over WP:NJOURNALS are among the most hostile, petty, and vindictive-seeming that I've encountered in 30K+ edits here. Few things do such a good job of making me want to wash my hands of the whole project as a meaningless time sink. Then I remember, with a sigh and a grumble, that lots of math and science pages are still in bad shape, and there's some nebulous "good of the world" argument to be made that I plug away at those. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, XOR'easter! I think your reply to me on that DRV was right on the money. I know what you mean about a meaningless time sink. I had a long period of minimal activity here. But in the end, there is enough room for the good work of editors like you. I truly hope you stick around. Don't hesitate to give me a shout if you ever get close to a burnout. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... Yeah, that "discussion" and a couple others have done me in, I think. XOR'easter (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't. That discussion will be adjudicated exactly as it needs to be, with the minority view getting the weight it deserves. It is perfectly acceptable to ignore that hostility, and focus on the productive areas. Don't let a few P&G warriors get in the way of the project. Owen× ☎ 16:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Owen, as I stated the references in the article were sufficient for the WP:GNG. Instead of focusing on this part, you closed the AFD with a very irrelevant attack on my reasoning, while assigning me a different rationale than the one I brought forward. This is very unfortunate. As if you did not read what I wrote. Now forget about all that for one moment. Only three people responded. Would you be open to relisting? This type of hostile closure is really rare for AfDs, and makes work among fellow volunteers unpleasant, reslisting when there are only 3 respondents certainly is the common response for an AfD in this state. You would thus undo your unpleasantries and allow more time for the community to discuss. Three people with split opinions can be rather random. gidonb (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this here, gidonb. You made three assertions in that AfD: (1) current sources in the article meet GNG; (2) a quote from NEXIST; and (3) AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I didn't ignore (1) and (3), I merely pointed out that (2) was unhelpful and irrelevant. NEXIST instructs us to keep articles for which sourcing exists, even if those sources aren't cited in the article. Alas, you provided no such sources, nor a hint about where they might be found.

There were four participants in this AfD: the nominator, you, and two others. All but you supported deletion. Contrary to your claim here, there was nothing "random" in their opinion. All three were solidly anchored in policy and guidelines. Consensus would have likely been the same if we had thirty policy-based views. My closing wasn't "hostile". I wanted to provide transparency for my decision, explaining why merely waving the "NEXIST" flag is not a substantive argument unless accompanied by actual sources. I was hoping you'd take it as constructive criticism rather than as an insult.

Quoting various policies is not the same as addressing the actual notability-based weakness of an article. But by all means, feel free to take this to WP:DRV if you believe I erred in my reading of consensus. Owen× ☎ 12:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My sources were the two main references in the article that were also the sources that I found through my wider search. I will not submit my first DRV after 21 years over the very unfortunate wording of an AfD closure. Everyone is entitled to make a mistake. More sensitivity toward fellow users however is appreciated. We all volunteer our time here. gidonb (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. If your sources were already cited in the article, what was the point of quoting NEXIST? Owen× ☎ 16:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That the focus of the intro was on whether there were references (vs. sources) or not. It seems to conflict with no expiration date and NEXIST. My points were [A] the references were sufficient. [B] What matters is if there are sources out there. Not how long the article has been tagged for not having references. Maybe you can still correct that in the wording of the AFD closure because it does a grave injustice to my position. gidonb (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is indeed that there are sources out there. However, in your previous comment, you claimed your argument relied on the two sources already cited in the article, and you failed to provide any other sources. So again I struggle to understand the relevance of the NEXIST argument. WP:NEXIST is invoked whenever we can show sources that aren't cited by an article. That was exactly the point I made in the AfD closing.

Instead of going around in circles, I would like a simple answer to the following question: Do you have additional sources for that article? If the answer is Yes, why didn't you provide them in the AfD? If the answer is No, why did you bring up NEXIST? Owen× ☎ 16:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your newest complaint is going around in circles. Well, answers will be repetitive if you keep asking the same question. I brought up NEXIST because of the focus of the intro on the length of time that the article wasn't sufficiently referenced, according to the nominator. However, I also saw multiple good references that were already in the article, sufficing the GNG. So the supposedly insufficiently referenced for me did not fly. By now I have already suggested two ways to correct your behavior. If you do not want to adopt either one that's ok. The essence of a suggestion is that it sometimes gets adopted and sometimes not. Just like an opinion. Most people closing a debate, however, do not attack the opinions of participants. If you do not want to amend your past behavior in any way, then at least try to be civil next time. That was my third and last suggestion. gidonb (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So in a word, no; you do not have additional sources for that article. Your quote of NEXIST was little more than a red herring - an attempt to out-acronym the other participants, with no basis in policy or guidelines. I initially assumed good faith, but your evasive responses here suggest otherwise. If you want that AfD or any of its wording changed, please take this to DRV. Owen× ☎ 17:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More incivility and not a red herring at all. Rather, a relevant complaint that AfDs tend to focus too much on references. Here, the references were ok. Not great but ok. Hopefully, others have looked at this in-depth and reached another conclusion than mine. That would also have been a positive AfD conclusion. gidonb (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know I've taken your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rampage killers (familicides in the United States) to Wikipedia:Deletion review 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. Owen× ☎ 01:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw. I was respectfully wondering if you could re-open it. Despite the page length the engagement was quite low, with only three votes and the vast majority of discussion happening in the past few days including today. Also, I found a few more sources I was planning to add to the article. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed your comments in that discussion, and it became clear that your arguments, while well intentioned and made in good faith, are not based on our policies and guidelines. The other three participants refuted your arguments while relying on policies and guidelines. The discussion has been extended twice already, with consensus becoming very clear. I see no point in extending this debate yet again. However, if you believe I made a mistake in assessing consensus or in the process applied, you are welcome to appeal the case to Deletion review. Owen× ☎ 00:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to restore Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Tondi to my userspace? (in case either me or Habst ever find enough coverage for notability) Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better approach would be that we draftify the page after you or Habst find enough coverage for notability. As you know, drafts are generally deleted after six months unless they're moved to main namespace, and we don't want that clock to start ticking until you're ready. Right now, it sounds like you're not sure you can find such sources. Give me a shout here once those sources are ready. Makes sense? Owen× ☎ 01:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking it could be to userspace as there is no timer there as far as I'm aware. I do think it could make it a bit easier to find sources, as it provides information which can be used to search for the athlete in relation to certain events, etc. Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs are generally not eligible for userfication. And true, there's no explicit timer as with draft, but that just means anyone can nominate the page for MfD right away, which generally doesn't happen with a draft. On the flip side, we certainly don't want a poorly sourced BLP to sit in your userpsace for more than six months, especially seeing as such a page will be indexed by search engines, which isn't the case with draftspace.

Pinging @JoelleJay: for a second opinion on this, seeing as she did a thorough assessment of existing sources, and will likely have a better feel than I do for the potential to find additional sources. Owen× ☎ 01:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, from a look I took before it was deleted it didn't look that bad. The only issue seemed to me to be that it didn't have significant coverage; the sourcing seemed fine (i.e. I thought everything was reliable, referenced, just no sigcov). What would a case be for it at MfD? Also, are userspace pages really on search engines? I looked up my own userpage on Google and only found my Commons page. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire AfD, like most AfDs, was about the existence of SIGCOV, so I'm not sure what you mean by "the sourcing seemed fine". And the same issue will doom the userfied page at MfD. So again, I see no point in doing anything until better sourcing is found.

User pages can be indexed, while draft pages cannot.

Anyway, let's give JoelleJay a chance to chime first. Owen× ☎ 01:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By "sourcing seemed fine" I meant there wasn't, e.g. unsourced content about a BLP, tabloid negative info, etc.; although required in articles by Wikipedia, in a real sense, a lack of sigcov cannot, er, "harm" the subject of the article when everything else is fine. I don't think there's a requirement that userspace drafts must have sigcov; I have several myself, e.g. User:BeanieFan11/Bill Collins (American football player) (albeit not a BLP). But yes, I can wait to see what Joelle has to say. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping! I'll link some of my own searches for Tondi below, although I'm copy-pasting from my browser history so some links might not work. My evaluation of the available non-database sourcing was that there was nothing that went beyond passing mentions in event results lists, with the possible exception of the AllAfrica/L'Express piece that I only had partial access to (I did try to get AllAfrica Premium archives added to the WikiLibrary access list, but looks like that didn't get enough votes). From what I could read of that, it did not seem likely at all to contain SIGCOV, or even any coverage at all,[1][2] of Tondi. I didn't find any other mentions of him on L'Express or on AllAfrica[3] or Internet Archive, or through ProQuest or Newspaper Archive or my university's library search. All of this is to say that I am very doubtful any suitable sources are accessible, and simply listing out the sources we do have somewhere in userspace would be equivalent in usefulness to holding a draft of the previous version there (since it's unlikely any of the prose in the article pre-deletion would be recyclable per BALASP if actual SIGCOV was found). JoelleJay (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So is this a "no" you're suggesting for userspace? I personally don't see the issue since it probably would make it easier to find sources (e.g. looking for him in relation to a specific notable event) and would make it easier to move back if we do find sufficient coverage (I do think much would be recyclable – I don't see why the hypothetical sigcov sources about him wouldn't cover his highest athletic achievements, which looked like what the article focused on if I'm not mistaken); me and Habst are also trying to find a way to contact Niger media about these athletes, as they would likely know whether the athletes are truly notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JoelleJay!

BeanieFan11, I am a big supporter of draftification and userfication when an editor wishes to work on an article that isn't ready for main namespace. A few things make me reluctant to do so in this case:

• The article is a BLP, which means our sourcing standards are higher.

• Current assessment of sources suggests it is doubtful significant coverage can be found at all, let alone in a timely fashion.

• Your comments here suggest that you still believe the article was already sufficiently sourced when it was deleted in AfD, which makes me worry your efforts might be misguided.

• You turned down my offer of draftification, so as to avoid the six month deadline. Userfication is not meant to be a long-term parking spot for failed articles. Seeing how you moved the Bill Collins page from draft to your userspace (and removed the AfC tag!) to evade deletion, where it has been sitting for almost a year with zero effort to improve it, suggests the same might happen with the Tondi article. Looking at your userfied pages, I see a long list of articles sitting there for years with no attempt to bring them up to our standards for mainspace inclusion. I see no reason to believe the fate of the Tondi article would be different.

So I'm afraid I'm back to my original offer: if and when additional sources that provide SIGCOV on the subject are found, we can look at draftification. I also urge you to either improve the articles already in your userspace, as you promised in their AfD, or else tag them for deletion. Userspace is not meant as a permanent sanctuary for articles that aren't fit for main namespace. Owen× ☎ 14:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I started a page to check how many of these userfied drafts I really have and the number is five; three were from last year, I still need to get in contact with someone offline to help get sources for those, thanks for reminding me (also, for Collins, Liz advised me to remove the AFC tag); the other two were from last month and I may or may not eventually get to (need to research further). What about this as a different option, if you have BLP concerns? You restore it to my userspace and then redirect it to User:BeanieFan11/userspace draft guide – that way, the history is still intact for if me / Habst find sources (there is a possibility IMO if we can get in contact with the Niger media, which we're working on) but it is not a "page" that is indexed, etc. Thoughts? As for my comment "sufficiently sourced", I'll repeat what I said above, I meant there wasn't, e.g. unsourced content about a BLP, tabloid negative info, etc.; although required in articles by Wikipedia, in a real sense, a lack of sigcov cannot, er, "harm" the subject of the article when everything else is fine. – I am aware that sigcov is a requirement and would not move it back unless such coverage is found. Sandstein has also given allowance of userfication for a similar Niger athlete (link), albeit it not being a BLP. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a good idea, for the reasons I listed above. And again, I urge you to tag those userfied pages for deletion, unless you are genuinely prepared to bring them up for AfC review within the next few days. Wikipedia frowns upon having this type of userfied sanctuaries for deleted articles. I'm sure you truly intended to work on them when you asked for draftification, and the closing admins took your word for it. But when you subsequently moved them to userspace to evade deletion, and the absence of any effort to improve those articles, casts doubt on the future of those pages, and on the prospects of any pages added to that collection. Owen× ☎ 17:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be rude, but there is WP:NODEADLINE. Several of those were specifically userfied (not draftifed), with the admins knowing it could take a long time (I could explain in-depth why it is taking time for the five if you like, but I don't think that's necessary). I actually think the redirect idea of mine is even better than my initial idea because it addresses your points in about it being a BLP / indexed – no one will come across it when its a redirect, but the page history is still maintained for when coverage is finally found. In response to your other points, I do understand notability / sourcing requirements, as otherwise more than ~2 of my 900 articles created would have been deleted; and additionally there is a very real possibility that coverage does exist for an athlete like this who was a top player in his nation – getting in contact with Niger media, which is what me and Habst plan on doing, would likely be able to find such sources. Should I ask about this at some place, to get the opinions of others on this topic? Note that Sandstein gave his approval for a similar Niger bio in Boureimba Kimba; besides Kimba not being a BLP, there isn't really much that difference between the two. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NODEADLINE is a lovely essay. Alas, draftifications and userfications are very much a temporary solution, not a sanctuary for deleted content. But seeing as you have no intention of letting this go, by all means, let us take those userfied pages to MfD and see what the consensus is. Owen× ☎ 18:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keeping the pages as a "sanctuary for deleted content" – I do still intend on getting them returned at some point (if / when I locate sufficient coverage for the bios; for the seasons its a bit more complicated but I can explain that too if you want). You can take them to MfD if you like; not sure what that'd solve but OK. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: I'm really not seeing a good reason to decline Beanie's reasonable request to have a chance at improving the article. There's literally no harm in doing so. Especially considering the result of the MfD discussion you started, which frankly, should be withdrawn as a snow close. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The MfD is now withdrawn. You have the sysop bit, go ahead and userfy the Tondi page. You're deluding yourself if you think it will ever see any improvement to its sourcing, or ever make it back to mainspace. JoelleJay already spent more time searching sources for the article than BeanieFan11 ever will, based on BeanieFan11's history with userfied pages. But hey, it's not worth a DRV; do as you wish. Owen× ☎ 22:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you withdrawing that @OwenX but I invite you to assume good faith, especially of significant content creators who express an interest in improving a subject. Beanie has a good history on this sort of thing and if they can't find anything... So what? Better we give them a chance to do so than not. As for restoring the page, I did not want to over rule you, but since you've said it's ok, I'll go ahead and do so.

PS. 5 user space drafts is nothing and Beanie's history with drafts is fantastic. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I think BeanieFan11 is a great content creator, and I'm sure they honestly intend to improve those userfied articles. They just never seem to get around to it. I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm just being pragmatic here. Deleted articles that end up in BeanieFan11's user space are there to stay, untouched. This isn't a "draft" type of situation; it's the final stop for those articles. The sooner BeanieFan11 admits this to themselves, the less time we'll waste on pointless draftification and userfication options on AfDs. Owen× ☎ 22:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why concern yourself with deletion at this point. It's a non-issue. Deletion is just a way of hiding a page from view from users who don't have a particular user access level. A page that was a part of the encyclopedia and is no longer a part of encyclopedia by virtue of it being moved out or undeleted to outside of mainspace is a page that has already been dealt with on the side of regulating what content is included in the encyclopedia. When deleted articles end up in BeanieFan11's user space, they are no longer articles at that point. G13 is a crude apparatus that culls pages that are already outside of the encyclopedia under an assumption that such pages should not accumulate indefinitely because the bloat of the number and volume of such pages is tied to a hypothesis of harm: that if this growth was tolerated indefinitely, there would be instances of undiscovered offending content remaining accessible for a long time (years), which could bring the project into disrepute, could cause harm to individuals, and cause various annoyances. G13 is really specifically about hiding content with such serious problems from public view, and it accomplishes this through sheer indiscriminateness precisely because it is assumed that all such content can never be discovered and dealt with efficiently on a discriminate, case-by-case, basis. The justification for indiscriminately deleting non-offending drafts is that abandoned-looking drafts (they may not really be abandoned but after no edits in six months it's just reasonable to assume that they are) are already pretty much out of people's sight, they're out of people's minds, they are not indexed, links don't lead people to them, so there is no great loss in hiding something that is already practically invisible. But this G13 removal of non-offending drafts is a side effect, not the meaning of G13. It's harder to assume that a userspace page has been truly forgotten, simply due to where it's located—plausibly, the user in whose page it is has not forgotten about it. So the "out of sight out of mind ~ deleted" construct works less well to begin with. If it's a trusted user, the hypothesis of harm construct almost completely collapses. And by nominating any page for a deletion discussion, a user is bringing that page into everyone's sight. So everyone can see if it's a non-offending page in actuality, and therefore not anything that needs to be hidden from anyone's view. Deletion has no meaning here. It's meaningless.—Alalch E. 23:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This explains, why you deleted my page too instead of userfying it. Maybe it would be nice to have some "privatelyuserfied" feature, so you don't delete the content and don't leave it in a public user space indexable by search engines, but it accessible by the author privately only? Or this is not possible in wikipedia? Warmonger123 (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Warmonger123: I can email you the contents of the version I deleted. But please keep it off Wikipedia, including your userspace, unless you can find sources that pass our notability guidelines. Owen× ☎ 13:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thank you, but not need to email. I have a copy and I'm not going to submit it again, until new more significant sources appear and until I understand what are more significant sources. Cause I don't want to waste both mine and editors' time. I just wonder, if there is a possibility to improve wikipedia, to not delete the work of editors when it doesn't pass the criteria but hide it from publicity.
2. During the deletion discussion I left confused, because no one could answer me how a game development company can be added to wikipedia. The criteria of WP:CORP are close to impossible to meet for game developers. Almost all game development companies have only links to their games (products) but the company pages exist. Only one user provided an example of an article "Office tour of ACOMPANY", but it doesn't pass WP:CORP, because interviews and office tours can fall under self-promotion. I am not questioning an existence of currently existing articles in wikipedia. I am trying to understand how the criteria work. If you can help me to understand, would be much appreciated.

Warmonger123 (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alalch E., I don't think that page is offending or harmful in any way. For me, it's about misrepresentation. If I go to an AfD and say, "Please userfy this page to me; I doubt I'll ever get around to improving it, and it'll simply join the other pages sitting indefinitely in my userspace", I'd be laughed out of that AfD. But if I say, "Draftify and I'll work on it", most will take me at my word. When I know--or should know, based on past experience--that I'll never get around to working on that page, but still ask AfD participants to draftify rather than delete, I am allowing those particpants to be duped. I'm not trying to deceive them, but the end result is the same: they !vote for an ATD they'd never pick if they knew the whole story. As I said above, I'm sure BeanieFan11 honestly believes they will, some day, finally get around to working on those indefinitely parked "drafts". But based on their edit history, they should know it's unlikely to happen, and should be upfront about it when proposing draftification. Without this disclosure, these AfDs were effectively closed based on misleading information. It's not a trick or a con, but it's also not informed consensus.

Just wondering how you got to merge? Consensus was far closer to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 13:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing that. We have the nom as a Delete, Shazback as "Delete or Fold into Penmynydd" with some strong arguments, Eluchil404's Keep is tempered by "A merge to Penmynydd could be considered editorially", and Uncle G with a Keep. So, two Deletes with one accepting Merge as an ATD, and two Keeps with one accepting Merge as alternative. Not a clear consensus to merge, I agree, but certainly looks like the Merge option is the one most !voters should find the least objectionable. Your own !vote there seemed to be on the fence, so I would have thought you'd support moving that one sentence article to a better sourced page. Did I read that incorrectly? Owen× ☎ 14:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing this! A note on one aspect of your statement, though--the journal unambiguously meets NJOURNALS as having at some point in its history been indexed by Scopus. Perhaps your close could emphasize the lack of GNG coverage required for journals, as mentioned by Red-tailed hawk in his relist and by all the delete !voters? JoelleJay (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I fixed the language on that close. Owen× ☎ 12:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toadster101 has asked for a deletion review of King K. Rool. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 20:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what the consensus is at deletion review about non-admin closures, see for example Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 16.—S Marshall T/C 20:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you did an out-of-process close, and got away with it, and now you believe that entitles you to be rude and dismissive at will. Got it. Owen× ☎ 20:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't out of process, because of the consensus that I didn't need a sysop flag to do what I did. I didn't "get away with it", and in fact I purposely sought review when challenged. I'm certainly dismissive on occasion, but never groundlessly so.—S Marshall T/C 21:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sills Cummis & Gross. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gdavis22 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping. The second DRV is vexatious litigation, and I have filed a report at WP:AN that the user is a promotion-only account. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Owen× ☎ 21:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Owen, hope you are well. As I am sure you are aware, a deletion review for King K. Rool was conducted at the request of an editor. The consensus was that the original debate was correctly closed, however there is potential new information to consider. As the closer of the original AfD, this is more of a courtesy message as an FYI. The new AfD is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King K. Rool (2nd nomination); please also see my comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 19. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I think it's a reasonable close. Owen× ☎ 23:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately you will never please everyone, especially when it's the kind of debate that has been left unclosed for 9 days after the 7-day discussion window ended. But hey, it is what it is... Daniel (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Owen, I'm reaching out to you as you were the admin who closed the Adolf Hitler Fan Club AfD. Following the close, one of the "keep" editors, User:BabiesCon, created eight new redirect pages for other Adolf Hitler "Clubs": Adolf Hitler Rave Club, Adolf Hitler Fitness Club, Adolf Hitler Karate Club, Adolf Hitler Hunting Club, Adolf Hitler Research Fund, Adolf Hitler's Hate Club, Adolf Hitler Press Club, Adolf Hitler's Dinner Representatives all of which point to Pauline Smith (artist) which contains no content about these so-called "Clubs." Whether these were created in good faith (doubtful), or are a prank, a provocation, deliberate disruption, or whatever, I don't think it has encyclopedic value, and is calling to mind the essay WP:NONAZIS. Could you please have a look at it when you find a moment? I think an administrator's eyes are needed to assess the situation. Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Netherzone! I deleted all those redirects, and issued a warning to the user. Please let me know if they continue this disruptive editing. Owen× ☎ 08:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Owen, now the editor User:BabiesCon is claiming they are the "Adolf Hitler Infant Club" on their user page.[4] It seems they are here to provoke controversy rather than help to build an encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I opened a case on AN/I. Owen× ☎ 14:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OwenX! When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer Morningstar (Hazbin Hotel), you mentioned that a few !votes who were likely canvassed. Out of curiosity, would you mind letting me know where that impression came from? Thanks! Daranios (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daranios! Several of the participants in that AfD are users with very few edits on en-wiki, and with no prior participation in AfDs. While it's theoretically possible they found the discussion by chance, or were following the nominated article, from my experience, such participation is almost always the result of canvassing. Either way, whether they were canvassed or not didn't affect the outcome of the AfD, which was decided based on the merits of each view expressed there, not on the edit history of the participants. Owen× ☎ 14:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OwenX, thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Fouzai. I was wondering if you could implement the uncontested WP:ATD on it, i.e. redirecting to Athletics at the 2008 Summer Paralympics – Men's 5000 metres T46, so as to maintain the page history.

Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "uncontested". Your proposed ATD there received no support, and was declined by both subsequent Delete !votes. You may, if you wish, recreated the page as a redirect, which may or may not be challenged at RfD. Owen× ☎ 12:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX, thanks for the quick response. By uncontested, I mean that nobody said it was a bad target for ATD and nobody argued against ATD after I suggested it even though I did ask what other people thought. I think that !voting delete isn't the same thing as declining an ATD, and one of the purposes of closing as redirect as opposed to later creating a redirect is so that page history is preserved. I greatly respect your contributions as an admin, and I was wondering what you thought about that. --Habst (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your rather unconventional interpretation of how AfD works. A view of Delete is very much an opposition to Keep, Merge and Redirect. No one mentioned your proposed target because no one other than you was willing to accept a Redirect as an outcome at all. Geschichte specifically declined your proposal, and two others read it and still chose to !vote Delete. Coming up with wild interpretations of consensus to serve your desired outcome is unbefitting an experienced editor like you. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX, thanks, I appreciate your perspective. I don't think @Geschichte or anyone else declined my proposal, because they never commented on it or addressed it. Looking at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Prefatory material on alternatives, I don't think this is a wild interpretation of consensus at all, as the idea of preferring an alternative to deletion so long as it is not specifically rebuked is widely held. Regardless, I'm grateful for your thoughts and experience. --Habst (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great close on the afd. Nicely summarised. Praise! --Ouro (blah blah) 20:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ouro! Owen× ☎ 20:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask you to reconsider your close at this AfD. The previous close was no consensus, and I can well understand if this were the result again (even though numerically the deletes had it. But yeah, it's not a vote). However keep appears wrong, and notability is not the only consideration. TNT was mentioned from both keep and delete voters. The effect of "no consensus" is the same as a "keep", but I think closing this as keep takes inadequate account of some very real concerns about that page. Thanks for your consideration. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this here, Sirfurboy. I spent a fair amount of time going over the various views expressed on that AfD. WP:TNT is an essay, not a policy. The same is true for WP:DENY. As I mentioned in the close, if there's a problem with the content, go ahead and fix it. The project will not be served by deleting the page. And while a simplistic count of Keeps and Deletes would suggest the absence of consensus, once you discard !votes based on anything but policy and guidelines, there is a clear consensus to keep the page. Owen× ☎ 20:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS,

Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions.

Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area.

There were issues of neutrality that were raised that you have discounted. TNT is an essay, but the call for TNT is based on it being unlikely that the topic asis can exist without breaching policy. ROUGHCONSENSUS also says Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. and I am afraid that your close rather suggests that the delete !votes fall into that category. That is incorrect. They fall into the above, and although IAR is not a wise thing to cite in a deletion rationale, IAR is policy, and if a majority of editors are claiming an article is so damaged in its formulation that it should not exist in its current form, then IAR is a perfectly good policy basis for not discounting those arguments. The same goes for the DENY arguments. This close seems to suggest that if someone is willing to throw enough money and resource at creating an article, we'll just keep it. That is a bad precedent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your IAR argument. How are you suggesting the Delete !votes were trying to improve Wikipedia? Deleting an article on a notable topic is not an improvement, regardless of who originally created the page. WP:DENY is neither a policy, nor is it relevant here. Anyone relying on it would, correctly, have their view discarded. I'm sure it infuriates many here that a paid editor "got away" with their offence, but we will not harm the project just to dish out punishments. If someone is willing to throw money to create an article about a topic we want here, then we'll get an article about that topic. If the end result is improving Wikipedia, I am not overly bothered that someone ended up getting paid in the process. The "slippery slope" fallacy isn't a valid reason to harm the project. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blowing up an article and starting again is a net positive to the encyclopaedia in exactly the circumstance where the article as it stands is an obstacle to the article that should be. As per Oaktree b's comment at the AfD, the article is a mishmash of sources. It has been synthesised into a topic, but it is not the topic that would be found to be notable, if someone were to write that. This, instead, matches a POV - the anti Qatar POV of the TronFactor sockfarm, and if I or any other editor were to go in there and attempt to expunge all the SYNTH, we would be quickly reverted. Even if we weren't, it is a daunting prospect. It is a truism in all aspects of life that early decisions stick and have repercussions for years to come. This is why our policies do allow for deletion when any of the content policies are violated, and it is "very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy."

Of course, I am not asking you to agree that we have consensus for that threshold, and that the article should therefore be deleted. I am saying that this policy, and it is policy, is why the delete votes should not have been discarded. The closer assesses consensus, and may discard votes in some circumstances, but I do not think it is correct to discard them in these circumstances. They were logically framed and cogently argued, and were not merely personal opinion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has 67 cited sources. Are you telling me that none of them is useful? I don't see how "blowing up" advances anything. If the article is a "mishmash", improve it. If having the existing article there confuses anyone, they can edit a fresh version in draftspace, and then merge or replace the original with it. No need for admin tools to do any of this.

I admire Oaktree b; their views in AfD are usually spot on. And for all I know, that may be the case here too, but their view was one of the few Delete arguments that didn't rely on the irrelevant "WP:DENY" essay. I can't arbitrarily boost the weight of Oaktree b's !vote against a clear consensus. And note that even they suggested draftifying as an ATD.

You said, and if I or any other editor were to go in there and attempt to expunge all the SYNTH, we would be quickly reverted - that's a content dispute, not a matter for AfD to adjudicate. That said, I'm not opposed to applying an EC protection for such a contested page, so that you and other experiences editors can work on it without having to fend off SPAs and POV-pushers.

I don't agree that it is "very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy." And more importantly, that view was not the consensus at the AfD. We have enough sources to write an NPOV article on this notable subject, as the Keep views noted. And as much as I appreciate your attempts to justify the Delete !votes, first by citing IAR and now by claiming no article on this subject could be written in compliance with our policy, most of the actual Delete views on the AfD didn't make such claims. They just cited "WP:DENY". And again, we don't delete articles out of WP:SPITE, nor to prevent setting a precedence.

I get the sense that you are trying to put your own words in the mouth of the Delete !votes on that AfD. As the closing admin, I can't do that; I have to take the views of the participants at face value. As such, I cannot use your arguments to overturn what I see as a consensus to keep among the policy-based arguments into a no-consensus based on arguments that--with one or two exceptions--weren't voiced in the AfD. But of course, you are welcome to take this to DRV. Owen× ☎ 22:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has 67 cited sources. Are you telling me that none of them is useful? - I would say that is exactly the problem. 67 cited sources, none of which were analysed in either AfD. Why? Because it is far too many. No editor has time to sort through 67 sources, locating, reading and analysing them. And because of this, they will be left alone. Any editor removing 67 sources from the article would be classed as tendentious. And all 67 sources were chosen and collated by the TronFactor sock farm. This is exactly why TNT is called for. The current source selection creates an article that is synthesised in a certain way, as chosen by the sock farm. It is far far harder to unpick those decisions than it would be to create a brand new article from the three secondary sources Red Tailed Hawk found, that analyse Qatari soft power. Currently we have a synth article standing in the way of a properly tertiary article.

Note also that only two of those 67 sources even mention soft power. I randomly clicked three sources on the page. One from the left of the list, one from the middle and one from the right. I got: [5] - Criticism of David Beckham taking the Qatari shilling, [6] - an airline deal and [7] - criticism of Kushner for taking the Qatari shilling. These are all news sources and are not secondary sources about Qatari soft power. The article is not a tertiary piece, it is secondary, built from primary sourcing and reflects the biases and choices of the writer. This article is not alone in this problem, but is a prime example of it.

As for I appreciate your attempts to justify the Delete !votes, first by citing IAR - I cited ROUGHCONSENSUS. It is the deletion guidelines that mention IAR. My point is not that we should IAR. My point is that it is not good enough to say that DENY and TNT are merely essays and that arguments based on these can be discounted because they are essays. They are essays that are in line with a policy: if a considered case is made, and a consensus exists, that a strict reading of a policy is harmful to the encyclopaedia, then IAR is the policy that enacts that consensus. ROUGHCONSENSUS shows where you can discard !votes, and this was not such a case. Note that most delete !voters did not mention DENY specifically, but presented other considered reasons. This is why G5 exists too, and again, arguing it is out of time can be ignored, per policy (as long as a consensus exists to do so). I am sorry, but I do not think you are correct in your view that this discussion was a consensus to keep. I can understand why you could say there was no consensus to delete, but I do not understand how you can read that discussion and conclude there was consensus to keep.

Now, what to do? DRV, to my mind, is a terrible place to go to, and I do not want to go there. Moreover, what would it achieve? I'd hope there would be agreement that this was no consensus. I don't believe it would be overturned to delete. The article would still be here, so that is not worth the time, nor the bad feeling. I know that closing discussions is a thankless task, and being dragged to review would surely be an unpleasant experience that I would not wish on you. I won't take this there. I do still ask that you consider what I have said - not as a means of relitigating the debate, but as a means to recognise the disquiet amongst those who took the time to argue for deletion. Ideally you would amend your close, but if you choose not to, that is your choice and I'll leave it there. I will add my thanks to you and the other closers for doing that job. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the talk page and start a discussion about WP:TNT-ing the page - I !voted keep, but would absolutely support this, and can help finding some sources. SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That is the correct approach. An AfD adjudicates the notability and encyclopedic value of the topic, not the appropriateness of the page contents. Admin tools shouldn't be used to force editorial choices such as cleanup. Owen× ☎ 12:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the closure of Alleged electoral manipulation in Pakistan AfD. I was really looking forward for such a closing note and for learning how to close such a weird one. I really resonated with Xymmax's comment. Condolences, lol. GG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Since I can't compete with admins like Liz on sheer volume of work done, I try to make up for it by handling the AfDs other admins don't want to touch. That makes me rather [un]popular at DRV, but I guess someone has to do this. Owen× ☎ 13:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, yeah. Well, you've gotta compromise somewhere, right? But this was a good one. Happy editing :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GoldWitness has asked for a deletion review of Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 21:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cryptic! Owen× ☎ 21:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was to salt (and this is in fact what the full protection rationale states is the intent), but if it's supposed to be salted, shouldn't the page have been fully deleted and then create-protected, instead of edit/move-protected with a template requesting salting? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may have used the wrong template, but I did fully delete the page before recreating for the SALTing. Can you see any of the history? Owen× ☎ 00:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, I was asking more if the SALTing was supposed to be at edit=sysop/move=sysop, instead of create=sysop (similar to what is applied at Brandon Lorenzo (seen at the protection settings here, for example, with the page fully deleted and then protection applied to creation), since the SALTing for Marlabs doesn't show in Special:ProtectedTitles as a page protected from creation, but rather shows up in Special:ProtectedPages as a page protected from editing instead. (The difference is trivial, mainly being that it appears in the new pages queue for review by an NPP'er if done this way instead of by deleting and create-protecting, I'm more just asking if the difference was intentional or if there was some reason behind re-creating with just a template there and not just putting create protection on instead.) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hope I got it right this time. Thanks for the heads-up, EggRoll97! Owen× ☎ 00:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, perfect! Thanks! EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OwenX, I see that you proceeded with deletion of the article 'Zoottle'.

However, I do not see why this was necessary. The sketchy sources that prompted the nomination for deletion have been long replaced with more reliable sources (though according to some, sources written in Greek aren't reliable - and I object to this). Mattheozard123 (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My task in closing the AfD about it was merely to reflect the consensus reached in that discussion, which in this case was unanimous. If you believe all three participants erred in their view to delete the article, you can take the issue to WP:DRV. Owen× ☎ 21:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I am writing you about this deletion discussion. You said that there was not consensus about notability, but, actually, after the Liz request for addtional information, I answered demonstrating that all the TV movies enlisted in the entry of Claudia Letizia are just spam and an IP voted for "no notability". Shouldn't you at least remove all the spam from the entry? After that, Sandstein requested more info and, after I wrote again about the spamming campaign of this entry, none voted for the notability of the subject, none proved me wrong about the spamming, so how can you evaluate that there was not consensus? Everyone who spoke said that the subject was not notable. Thank you, --Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration. However, going over that AfD again, I still see no rough consensus to delete the article. There are a total of four legitimate participants in that AfD; three !voted Delete, and one - Keep. Note that for the anonymous Italian IP user, it was their first edit on English Wikipedia, which suggests they were either WP:CANVASSed here to vote, or it's one of the other three Delete votes trying to WP:STUFF the ballot after logging out. Either way, their deletion rationale was irrelevant, and WP:DISCARDed based on lack of merit.

As for the other three Deletes views, while legitimate, I see those arguments as weak. We don't delete articles just because they were deleted on other wikis. And in my closing note, I explained why G11 does not apply here. Even if the page was created as part of a "spamming" campaign, it cannot be deleted if the subject itself meets our notability guidelines, and the article could, in theory, be rewritten with a neutral POV to meet our standards. G11 is for unambiguous advertising or promotion, which this clearly is not, as evidenced by the well-reasoned Keep rationale.

Your review of sources was indeed useful, but it wasn't echoed by any other participant. Other than you, the only meaningful substantive argument was made by the lone Keep !voter. Therefore, I did not see a consensus to delete.

As for removing spam on the article, that is outside the scope of the AfD closer. A closing admin is expected to delete or change to a redirect, if that was the outcome. They are not expected to carry out editorial work such as merging content or removing unsourced material. Some admins will, after an AfD, take off their admin hat, don an editor hat, and carry out editorial work, but that is up to each admin's preference. I cannot read Italian, which would make it difficult for me to assess the sources cited there. Nothing is stopping you, Giammarco Ferrari, from doing just that. Any editor is welcome to clean up articles based on sources. If that ends up reducing the article to a stub, so be it. In three months, you are welcome to nominate the page for deletion again, and perhaps the outcome will be different then. Owen× ☎ 13:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I understand you point but the only Keep voter said "Given coverage she has received in various media" but as I demonstrated in my source review all those media were reporting spam statements, as the subject does not appear in the cast of any of the films mentioned in the entry. This proves that the "various media" are just reporting spam, and none proved me wrong. You said that none echoed me, but none even proved me wrong and you can easily verify my statements, as I posted the links with the casts. Even if you can not Read italian, you can use a translator: even if you don't delete an entry only because it was deleted on other Wikis, reading the reason of that deletion can be useful for you (in the Italian version it is clearly written that there is no trace of her partecipation in those movies, and this is an useful statement for every Wikis). Thank you, Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "spam" sources. Il Mattino isn't a spam source, and neither are La Stampa or La Gazzetta dello Spettacolo. If you are disputing what was reported on reliable sources, you are engaging in WP:OR.

It is not my duty as the closing admin to translate sources from Italian. It is also no one's duty to "prove you wrong". You made a claim, someone else disputed it. That means there was no consensus. I will not review the deletion rationale on other wikis, as it is not relevant to an AfD on the English language wiki. If you believe my closing of that AfD did not correctly reflect the consensus or lack of consensus there, you are welcome to appeal the case at WP:DRV. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing this. I wish to make a minor clarification. I'd said, ... adding to [concerns about independence], is the fact that the sources presented are of Latin American and African origin while the subject is Canadian, though there is no convincing case made that the subject has predominantly and exclusively worked in those far away places. I did not mean to claim that sources "must" originate close to home for GNG purposes. I was trying to point out that organic coverage usually originates at the place of origin or activity and slowly spreads outward, whereas organised paid pushes have to shop all over the world for websites or magazines that look legitimate or are usually legitimate, but also compromisable. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I understand. I just wanted to make it clear in my closing that the language or nationality of sources was not a factor in how the AfD was closed. Owen× ☎ 14:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay! That's a relief. I was misrepresented about that point in the AFD itself. So, I got worried that maybe I did actually say/imply that unintentionally. Nice phone, by the way ;) — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sindhuja Rajaraman. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 06:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (2 nomination), you said that "This argument was not successfully rebutted by the Delete views", but four of the keep votes came in the final day of the discussion and I did not return to the page in that time to respond. With a 6–5 !vote, I do not believe there is a clear consensus to keep, and I kindly request that you relist the AFD for further discussion rather than close it. Reywas92^Talk 14:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting me. Firstly, as you know, AfD is not a ballot. We don't just count !votes. We assess arguments based on their merit with regards to policy and guidelines. Your argument in that AfD was that the term "cult" was too vague, and depended on someone's personal opinion. This was successfully countered the next day by at least one Keep opinion. You responded to that two days later, but your argument about the list being "indiscriminate", again, ignored the fact that the list was compiled based on reliable sources, where the list itself was notable, therefore meeting NLIST. The Keep views on the final day merely repeated the arguments voiced by the Keep views from the second day of listing, so there was nothing new for you to counter.

The Delete views largely ignored policy and guidelines from the start. Nothing happened in the final day of listing to change that. Also, please note that consensus is required to delete a page. No consensus is required to keep it. Even if we blindly counted !votes, which we shouldn't, the outcome would still see the article kept as a "No consensus" close. Owen× ☎ 14:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of cult films. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Reywas92^Talk 00:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not worth my time and energy to bring it for review, but I think the closure of the AfD Western Provident Association should have been no consensus (other than nominator, there were three delete votes: one was a blocked account, one was "per nom" and the last was not based on sourcing as a whole, and asserted an extreme reading of IAR which I didn't think needed to be addressed). I think you might to reflect on whether it was an appropriate move to delete.

That having been said, may I have a WP:REFUND? I have an idea about what to do with the material in the article (probably not recreating it, unless I somehow find I missed great sources). Thanks. Oblivy (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. There were three guideline-based arguments to delete. Of the two "Keep" views, one simply stated, I added some references, and the other - you - made a vague reference to WP:IAR, an argument that was soundly refuted by the others. In the end, ORGCRIT, NCORP and GNG are the relevant guidelines here, and the AfD was closed accordingly.

What is this "idea about what to do with the material", and why are you being secretive about it? We don't undelete articles based on vague, unspecified ideas to use the material for something other than the article itself. If you've uncovered new sources that establish SIGCOV for the subject, let's look at them and decide. Otherwise, the deletion stands. Owen× ☎ 11:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for appearing secretive. I would like to see if the material on the court case, which received a lot of independent coverage, would be enough to build an article on the case. I also was planning to see if there were other pages on the history of the NHS reforms to which information could be added. I don't foresee recreating the article. My understanding from WP:BEFORE was that I could get a copy of the deleted page provided in draft (perhaps in my sandbox[8]?)

My point about IAR was that if it doesn't make sense for the encyclopedia to delete an article then the guideline shouldn't apply. I made that point more clearly in response to a query from the nominator. That position wasn't refuted, it was just rejected, and neither the reason given (misinformation article, transcluded text) and the tone used suggested further discussion would bear fruit.

Speaking of tone, I've tried to tone down my comments above. Sorry for being a bit abrasive before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblivy (talk • contribs)

Here are the four sources cited about the court case: ^[1][2][3][4]

You are welcome to add these refs to any relevant article. Owen× ☎ 12:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was text associated with one of the references, specifically a claim about it being the first time email was used in a libel action. I think I found the reference and it's a law firm's blog, and I'm not seeing more than one significant source, but it's hard working like this. I also wanted to look at some of the text and refs around top-up and cancer care.

I understand that it's appropriate for me to ask for a draftspace copy of a deleted article that I can edit before/without publishing it to mainspace. I have no intention of being disruptive. I'm a responsible editor and I abide by AfD decisions. I think there may be scraps (including the text) that can be used elsewhere. And if not I'll delete it all when I'm done. Does that work for you? Oblivy (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @AusLondonder:, @Allan Nonymous: and @HighKing:, who participated in the AfD, to see if there's a valid objection to draftifying the page. Owen× ☎ 14:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with that. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No issues from me either. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you all for your help! Owen× ☎ 20:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll see what I can do with it. Oblivy (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to trouble you again, but I'm done with the draft article (repurposed some, abandoned some) and it can be deleted. I can't find a speedy delete reason that matches this situation. Can you help delete it? Oblivy (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. How much of this addition to National Health Service (England) was copied versus rewritten? Please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia (guideline). Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair question. Quite a bit of it comes from my own work trying to prevent deletion[9]. There is a small section I haven't changed which was by @EdwardLCReynolds who is long dormant, created the article, probably worked for the company (see edit history plus this[10]). It's the part that mentions Unison, which is fact checked. I can credit them with a dummy edit, no problem. Oblivy (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking! I skimmed the draft's history, and that seems right. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Owen

I'm a bit confused by the "delete" decision at this AFD... There was clear demonstration of ongoing reliable source coverage, which seems more than enough to establish WP:GNG. The "delete" decisions just seem to be more WP:IDONTLIKEIT than actual countering of the evidence... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to me, Amakuru. The AfD wasn't an easy one to close, which is why it went through three relistings, and even then sat for over eight days before it was closed. The Keep !vote, and some of the comments, brought up valid arguments, but so did the Delete ones. I don't see any IDONTLIKEIT-style arguments there. Editors like Oaktree b can be counted on to rely on P&G-based arguments, and indeed that was the case here, as it was with the others (ignoring Tame Rhino).

In the end, the sole Keep !vote clearly did not present a consensus to keep. The three Delete views (discarding the SPA created just to vote in AfDs) do, however, establish a rough consensus to delete. That said, I'll support bringing this to WP:REFUND in a month, if new sources can be found that establish notability. Owen× ☎ 11:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the response. This is the part I don't understand though. There were plenty of sources presented to establish notability. JoelleJay also concurred that they were there, while also asking for more recent ones which were presented.[11][12] It's quite disappointing to see well-written and properly sourced just deleted away like this on such flimsy evidence. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, Amakuru. But as a fellow admin, you know we aren't supposed to impose our own supervote when closing an AfD, and overrule experienced editors in good standing, relying on P&G, who reached a consensus that may differ from our own view. I wouldn't be surprised if a month from now, when you bring the page to WP:REFUND, a different conclusion will be reached. Owen× ☎ 13:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I know that. But equally, the Wikipedia concept of WP:CONSENSUS is that discussions are viewed through the lens of P&G. Your assertion that the deletes relied on P&G is completely false. Since when did "Unless she wins a seat in the legislature, I don't see notability as being met" and "she's only known for being a candidate, which isn't what's needed here for notability. Extensive coverage of a non-notable person doesn't help" form part of the notability criteria? The wording of WP:GNG is that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The latter part of this is clearly and unambiguously met here, so I can only think you might challenge it on the "presumed" part... but for a figure like this who's covered so extensively I'm not sure why that would be grounds to veto the page. Certainly her being "only a candidate" isn't relevant, it's up to reliable sources to establish notability, not for us to second guess. At absolute best, this was a "no consensus" rather than a "consensus to delete". Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said, The latter part of this is clearly and unambiguously met here, but three other editors, relying on the same guideline, did not reach the same conclusion. I did not see a valid reason to discard those views and close as No consensus. If you believe I erred, feel free to take this to DRV. Owen× ☎ 13:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IF the sources are presented, then arguments saying they don't exist is clear and patent nonsense and those deletes should have been roundly rejected. I'm surprised you would argue anything other than that, but fine I can see I'm not going to change your mind, thanks for your time and responses.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for a deletion review of Saira Shah Halim. Because you closed the deletion discussion so I am informing you if you want to participate in the deletion review. MrMkG (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying thanks for your prompt handling of that disruptive AFD case. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, StreetcarEnjoyer! Thank you for the prompt and accurate speedy close for it. Owen× ☎ 18:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Tran. Can you please reconsider your close of this afd. Afds are not headcounts, they are based on the substance of the arguments as they relate to policy. Once multiple sources were presented the delete comments based on it being unsourced become void. After the sources were presented no one made any attempt to address the sources, the closest to any acknowledgment of their existence was a vague wave at the notability guideline for companies which is of no use for a blp. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Duffbeerforme, but the views expressed on an AfD do not automatically become void once you've presented what you believe are sources establishing notability. Not to mention that the two participants who !voted Delete after you presented your case are highly experienced, respected editors. I appreciate the work you put into finding and presenting those sources. I honestly wish more AfD participants put as much effort as you did. But I cannot, in good faith, discard the legitimate, well-reasoned views of six--or even just four--experienced editors and let you cast an overriding supervote just because no one directly addressed the sources you presented. And by the way, I know for a fact that several of the participants there follow AfDs in which they !voted, and will respond or change their !vote if they see compelling evidence to do so. So your assumption that the four participants before your !vote didn't see it is likely baseless. Owen× ☎ 01:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you closed the afd delete based on your guess about what other people were thinking and you are saying it is ok to totally ignore any sources presented and that "highly experienced, respected editors" making vague waves at irrelevant policies is compelling. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that it is not okay to expect me to ignore the views of everyone but yours, which is what you're asking me to do here. My job as an AfD closer is to assess consensus, not to analyze sources. But if you believe I erred, feel free to take this to WP:DRV. Owen× ☎ 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK DRV it is. Yes its not your job to analyze sources but if no one bothers to then it's not your job to reject them which is what you basically did. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is repeatedly undoing my edits on the article Maratha Confederacy without any reason. I already had a long discussion on the article's talk page and quoted information from WP:RS sources but the person who is reverting my edits doesn't give any explanation on the talk or while reverting. He also has involved another user who is repeatedly harassing me on my talk page and giving no excuse on why he is reverting my edits (he has also been blocked once from what i saw on his talk page). I have provided WP:RS sources on article's talk page still the other user is commenting on my talk page "give reliable sources" and now has used a Red flag while reverting my edit besides demanding indefinite time period protection for Maratha confederacy article.

Plz help me. I would be grateful for you help. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text you're trying to add does not belong in the article's lead even if it didn't contain unsourced claims. Please work with the other editors to find where to insert it in the article, and how to remove the unsourced portions. Avoid reverting other editors, and solicit help from editors familiar with the subject and the sources. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is not considering WP:RS WP:RS? What to do see this? And I agree that we could have a conversation about what to add and what not add in the lead section but this doesn't mean they will add false info in the lead. For example in the lead they have added an agreement of 1716 with an emperor who died in 1712 and I have checked it in the source which they added now when i am trying to edit it one of the person is giving me warning of blocking me due to edit disputes. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Mohammad Umar Ali, but your editing pattern does not suggest that you are collaborating with other editors. Edit-warring is a bannable offence. I suggest you leave this article alone for a while, and work on something less contested. Owen× ☎ 13:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ok thnx for your help :( Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Elsewhere I have advised @Mohammad Umar Ali of a potential route forward. I hope very much that they take it. I hope that this allows their request on at least two editors' talk pages to cease, and them to take a quiet, calm step forwards. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Timtrent. I'm relieved to see we've reached a similar conclusion. Owen× ☎ 13:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think, Owenx, it gives them three choices:

• carry on as they are, and get both stressed and blocked
• proceed with dignity and humility requesting help at WP:DRN and accepting the consensus that is reached
• set this article aside and do something else

To me the best outcome is DRN because that not only solves the stated problem, but it also improves Wikipedia. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both! If it wasn't already at RFPP I probably would have protected as I see three edit warriors, which isn't particularly surprising. Not sure how this landed on either of our Talks as we don't seem to have had engagement with the parties, topic. I imagine it's going to crash land on AN* soon as well. Star Mississippi 14:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi It is at DRN now. I share your imagination. Is this article subject to South Asia discretionary sanctions? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just informing you that I have taken the deletion of == Deletion review for List of IMAX venues With 15/70 and/or Laser Projectors == An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of IMAX venues With 15/70 and/or Laser Projectors. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. to deletion review~~~~ Travelling nomad1 (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess IAR means "retention of subject classes I like is inherently ALWAYS in the best interests of the encyclopedia and I do not need any justification beyond that, nor do I need to explain why that means we don't have to comply with BLP, NPOV, and OR".... JoelleJay (talk) >>_all_other_policies?" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">18:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, no kidding. With these guys, sometimes you can only shake your head and walk away. Owen× ☎ 18:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to walk away if they didn't do this at every sportsperson AfD... JoelleJay (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know. And people keep falling for their draftification requests, which they invariably move to their userspace, for a growing private little sportsperson collection. Owen× ☎ 18:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Sangerpedia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 31 § Sangerpedia until a consensus is reached. (Notification being sent to all who participated in the DRV.) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the mistakes which I had done last & created the article Stun Siva, but again it's deleted. I had requested for undeletion, still it's rejected although this time I have included reliable sources & structured it according to a biography. I had you closed the discussion for the deleted page, please kindly reconsider my request. Ratheef Ahammed Refuon (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Ratheef Ahammed Refuon[reply]

Thank you for contacting me, Ratheef Ahammed Refuon. I think your best bet is to follow the instructions at WP:AfC, and submit a draft at Draft:Stun Siva for review. If approved, it will be moved to the main article space. Submitting a version that is substantially identical to the one that was deleted will just result in it being deleted again. Hope this helps! Owen× ☎ 11:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your intervention. I know consensus is not always something straightforward. However, after noticing the decision, I scrutinized the merger votes with WP:MERGEREASON in mind. Among the merge votes, [13] and [14] are stating the same thing word by word and I don't think the comments are backed by merger reason. This one is calling WP:Too soon 'essay' in a wrong manner and I replied to him. The most serious merge votes are [15] and [16] which point to MR #3 & #4 (or #5?). On the other hand, keep votes, which are more in number, are mostly backed by notabilty guidelines thanks to the enduring notability of the topic. Moreover, Ali Khamenei is already 9558 words; per WP:Size and merger reason, "Merging should be avoided if the resulting article would be too long or "clunky"." Thanks for your time. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this here. As I read them, the Merge !votes fall squarely into WP:MERGEREASON #4: insufficient notability for a standalone article. But if we reject their reason for merging, we can only read their views as supporting deletion, which would result in a rough consensus to delete. At this point, based on the arguments voiced in that AfD, merger is the only P&G-based way to avoid deletion.

As for WP:SIZE, I specifically addressed your concern in my closing rationale. Limiting article size is indeed our goal, but our notability standards are the basis for determining which pages should be kept. And again, the alternative to adding the text to an already long article would be deleting this text. I don't think that is what you want to argue in favour of.

That said, if in the future (not next week!), the topic gains enough independent notability to justify its own article, nothing stops you from discussing a spinoff. Owen× ☎ 14:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why this topic doesn't meet notability? It was repeatedly shown that this topic met WP:GNG during the discussion. AFAIK, no one objected to the reliability or independence of sources, or doubted SIGCOV.

Also, how did you find rough consensus to merge to Ali Khamenei? Of the 20 !votes, only 5 suggest merging to Ali Khamenei (of which 1 suggests merging to 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses). By contrast, 8 say keep, 5 say delete without merging and 1 suggests merging to another target and 1 suggests merge without specifying target. Can you specify which !votes you discarded? Without discarding I'm not seeing much of a consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: The question about notability is one you should direct to the participants in the AfD. As the closer, my job is to assess consensus, not to cast a supervote or assess notability myself.

You've been here long enough to know that this isn't a poll, and we don't go by nose count. I will not list which views I discarded or discounted based on apparent canvassing. But, for example, when someone with a grand total of ten prior edits on WP shows up to cast a vote, and then bases his argument on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I can tell you that their vote will not carry much weight with me nor with any other closing admin.

WP:ATD teaches us that closing as merge doesn't require a consensus to merge. All it requires is a consensus not to keep as a standalone page, and a valid, sensible merge target. If you believe the article should have been deleted, you can wait until the merger is done, and then nominate the remaining redirect for deletion on WP:RfD. If you believe there is a better target for the merger, you are welcome to discuss this on the article's Talk page, as that is beyond the scope of an AfD. Owen× ☎ 16:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all of your points except one: that there appears to be consensus in the discussion that this topic isn't notable.

"question about notability is one you should direct to the participants in the AfD". This was done repeatedly during the AfD. For example, 6 !votes cited "WP:NOTNEWS" without actually explaining how or which aspect of NOTNEWS was violated (one user mentioned sustained coverage, more on that below). Mhhossein then argued that all aspects of WP:NOTNEWS were satisfied by this article. Users are welcome to disagree with him, but not a single one even bothered to respond to this argument. Borgenland argued this was not a WP:ROUTINE event[17], and again no one seems to have responded to this point. Several users argued for enduring notability[18][19] and again I don't find anyone trying to disagree with that specific point.

Regarding sustained coverage: this article is about a topic that came into existence on May 30. When on May 31 a user complained the topic needed "sustained coverage", I asked them how this was even possible? Then Mhhossein repeatedly showed sustained coverage for the duration of the AfD[20][21].

A couple of merge !votes didn't cite any policy at all.

WP:NOTVOTE tells us "it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important". Did you evaluate the reasoning behind the !votes and if so I'd be interested in more details. Thanks for your time and patience.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can be frustrating when participants in an AfD ignore what you believe to be a debate-winning argument. Alas, there is no requirement for participants to come back and refute every opposing argument. What you are effectively asking me to do here is discard the valid views of highly experienced editors and admins who voiced P&G-based views in that AfD, because you feel some argument or other wasn't adequately refuted. That is an unreasonable expectation.

As for sustained coverage, you answered your own question: an article created about an event on the same day the event took place will not, by definition, have sustained coverage. "Sustained coverage for the duration of the AfD" is neither here nor there. In general, it is a bad idea to create an article about a recent event, exactly for this reason.

I am not going to detail my assessment of every !vote in that AfD. If you believe I erred in my reading of consensus, you are welcome to take this to WP:DRV. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 18:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was reviewing the exchanged comments. Regardless of the outcome, I pretty much believe every discussed case can be educational (even for me being here almost for a decade). Anyway, my understanding of your response to me is that the notability is not established. To me, this means your assessment did not find the offered reliable sources by the users and me were not enough to indicate the enduring notability. The latest coverage by a reliable source was on 13 June 2024 (3 days agao). Oh, there is another source [22] published just today alomst covering the letter! "However, Khamenei's letter was more mythologozing than Hollywood could even imagine," the piece by J. Pharoah Doss reads. In what other ways the notability had to be established? Moreover, arguments in your response, like "And again, the alternative to adding the text to an already long article would be deleting this text," still creates more room for the exchange of comment but maybe it is not beneficial to dig the things deeper than it. Thanks anyway. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any of what you ascribe to me in my replies above. When I say, As the closer, my job is to assess consensus, not to cast a supervote or assess notability myself, I mean exactly that. Whether notability was established or not is something the participants need to decide, not the closing admin. And like I told Vice regent, if you feel I erred in my reading of consensus, you are welcome to take this to WP:DRV. Owen× ☎ 13:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you meant by "notability issues" in your close? It would also be helpful to clarify that in your closure itself. In your assessment of the discussion, did the the article fail WP:GNG or WP:NOT or both? And which aspect of that particular sub-policy did it fail? For example, "GNG is failed because consensus is that sources given don't give SIGCOV". Answering this question would not only be helpful in considering whether to take this to DRV, but it would help with your suggestion "if in the future (not next week!), the topic gains enough independent notability to justify its own article...".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered all your questions. If you believe WP:SIZE trumps WP:GNG, or that I should ignore the valid views of many experienced editors because two users refuse to accept consensus, you are welcome to present your case at WP:DRV. This type of WP:REHASHing is unproductive. Owen× ☎ 20:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OwenX,

In a divided AFD discussion like this one, with editors on both sides on this discussion, it would help if you provided a brief explanation of how you came to a decision to Delete. I've found it lessens the likelihood that a closure will be challenged. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Liz. I was on the fence about adding a closing rationale for this one, and opted for the lazy choice for no good reason. Let's hope I don't end up having to provide that rationale ex post facto at DRV... Owen× ☎ 00:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you closed the Afd for Rockoons and redirected it to Soyuzmultfilm. However, I have a feeling this doesn't seem fair, considering no one objected to my last comment in the debate. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one is obliged to return to the discussion and refute every argument brought up there. Your final comment sat there for a week, and no one saw fit to respond to it. Please note that you were the only one in that AfD who !voted "keep". Not a single other participant agreed with you. Owen× ☎ 22:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you closed the Afd about that list as redirect, thank you for your work. I personally don't think that was the best outcome nor the consensus if there was one, and a 3d relist would not have hurt, but never mind, maybe I'm wrong and that's not why I am here. I have a technical question: there were 5-6 series redirecting to the page and I can't find them. I can't manage to check the deletion log for them. I had expressed, as I am sure you noticed, during the AfD, concern with those redirects. And another user had admitted it was a concern. Would you do me a favour and tell me if there's a way that I can identify those pages? "What links here" does not show them as they have probably been deleted as R to R. I might ask for a refund (if you wish to send me the text of those page in my UserSpace by the same token, double thanks). Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Apologies, ignore my request. I found them. Thanks anyway,-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update! I figured you'd probably find them quicker than I would. Owen× ☎ 19:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Owen- Since we're discussing a case at DRV, I need you to look into this issue as well; it seems rather suspicious and might be related. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that exchange, and understand your dilemma. The problem isn't a horde of anon IPs spoiling your AfDs, but an absence of support for your nominations. I believe I'm pretty good at discarding doubtful accounts with views not based on P&G. But if, after discarding those, I'm left with just one or two !votes to delete, there's not much I can do about it.

Arguing with a 3-week-old account with 350 edits, all around a single topic, seems like a waste of time. And them blanking their Talk page suggests they're not here to collaborate with others. Try instead to raise interest by linking to the AfD from relevant WikiProjects, or collaborating with experienced editors who worked on related topics or participated in similar AfDs. As long as your ping list isn't biased, it doesn't fall under WP:CANVASS.

I understand your frustration. It's easier to see the right approach than to convince others of it. Don't give up. Owen× ☎ 14:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, actually. There's no need to argue with a sock. I've just figured out the master account, so I'll be filing a SPI at some point later. So the next step for this BLP is AfD, not draftification, correct ? And I'm glad to hear that I can indeed ping some editors. I know some editors like @CNMall41, Allan Nonymous, and S0091: (I'm pinging to let them know that I can now safely ping them.) who don't always have same opinions as mine but are experienced with Pakistan-based sources. In fact, I've learned how to do proper source assessment from them so I'll definitely ping them in AfDs if it's not considered canvassing. It'll really help me—I've always avoided pinging them due to fear of canvassing. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a productive course of action. Good luck! Owen× ☎ 15:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Owen - I'm not here to contest the non-consensus closure. In fact, I appreciate that it was closed this way, as my AFDs often get closed as keep, even when flooded with irrational keep votes. I'm simply curious: if you were to vote on this AFD, how would you vote? I'm striving to improve my AFDs and your input would be valuable for my future cases. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really studied the sources closely enough to form a reasoned opinion about the article. However, from a superficial scan, I get the sense that if the article were called Memes in Pakistan, and included some introductory prose about the general phenomenon based on the sources identified in the AfD, the article would meet GNG. This implies that the article should not be deleted, as a simple move and cleanup is all that is required. Owen× ☎ 11:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for all of your work in AFDLand today and every day. It is invaluable! Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you close the AFD on this as merge? There is no content to merge, as the content already exists at the target article, and mutliple people have pointed out that a redirect from such a generic term is inappropriate, since there have been multiple vandalism events of Stonehenge in history. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I closed it as Merge because that was the consensus view at the AfD. I don't get a supervote as a closer. If you don't see any content to merge, then let those who do see such content carry out the merger. If no one finds eligible content, the article will simply be turned into a redirect.

If you believe there is a better target for this redirect, feel free to suggest so on the relevant Talk page. Owen× ☎ 18:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vote, and so all the people just saying merge with no explanation have less weight than people with actual explanation of why deletion is better, with proper arguments pointing out there is no encyclopedic content to merge. If this gets merged, it allows an inappropriate redirect to stay, and encourages voting without explanation over well reasoned arguments, and violates WP:NOTAVOTE. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the correct redirect action is delete the redirect, but if a merge occurs, that will not be possible. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the remaining redirect is inappropriate, you should nominate it at RfD. If you believe my closure was incorrect, feel free to appeal it at WP:DRV. Owen× ☎ 19:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

I'd like to respectfully request that you review the closing of this AfD. All 4 commenters that supported delete mentioned that the topic isn't covered as a whole but rather individually by coutry. Among other things, I mentioned that Google Scholar has 867 hits for "racism in North America". While I could have elaborated on that by citing a few examples, many, if not all of these sources deal with racism in North America as a whole and would be out of place inside each individual country's article. Here are a few: "Transnational Perspectives on the History of Racism in North America", "Imperialism and Settler Colonialism: Xenophobia and Racism in North America" (and here I should remind people that California was Mexico a mere 200 years ago), "Racism and the mental health of East Asian diasporas in North America: a scoping review", and I could go on. I'm not trying to convince you to keep; I just think these points could have been made in the discussion if/when those favoring deletion had had a chance to read and reply to the point I made. I feel like relisting would have been prudent. Thanks for your time. Rkieferbaum (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rkieferbaum!

The view you expressed on that AfD certainly gave me pause, and made my decision harder. In the end, there was no consensus to keep, and I truly doubt your view there would have swayed the opinion of any of the Delete !voters. Had this AfD been open for just a week, I might have relisted it. But after three weeks, I felt it was time to pull the trigger, and I'm sure you'd agree that the rough consensus was not to keep the page. Owen× ☎ 19:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there and thanks for the reply. Sorry but I don't agree that there was even rough consensus to merge. I'm sure you know consensus building isn't a simple matter of counting votes, and the central argument of the delete supporters was the one I expressed above (i.e. "no coverage of this subject as a whole", "Unable to find anything discussing this topic specifically", "This article should not exist unless sources can be found that specifically discuss racism in North America as a whole"). Before my comment, yes, there would have been a rough consensus. But my point was in direct opposition to those claims, which means consensus wasn't there anymore - at least until a couple of the participants had a chance to challenge what I had to say, wouldn't you say? Rkieferbaum (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but no one is obliged to come back and refute your opinion to ensure theirs stays valid. You voicing your view does not automatically invalidate everything that was said beforehand. That is not how discussions here work. Owen× ☎ 19:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks for your time. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Racism in North America. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curious as to how you saw this AfD as a Keep, especially when you noted the arguments to Delete/Redirect were strong. Of the !votes, the first Keep by Safari Scribe engaged but couldn't maintain any argument to show that any of the sources met NCORP and finally resorted to arguing that NCORP shouldn't be applied. The next y Parwiz ahmadi didn't provide any guideline based reasoning so !vote should have been discounted. Reading Beans mentioned a source but didn't argue that it met any of the guidelines and resorted to ad hominen comments. Then Vanderwaalforces focused on the history of the company and also resorted to arguing NCORP didn't apply. So 4 !votes to keep, two voters attempting to circumvent NCORP guidelines and two others not attempting to point to guidelines. That's against the nominator (quoting guidelines), myself (extensive quoting and source analysis using guidelines), and Alpha3031 (source analysis and guidelines). You say the Delete/Redirect arguments didn't gain much support among participants, but the Redirect was only suggested yesterday and I immediately changed my !vote to support it. I'd appreciate if you can you take another look please and see if you agree with my thoughts above? Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment, but not with the implied conclusion. The Keep votes were indeed not the strongest. But even if we discount them all, which seems rather extreme, we're still left without quorum to delete. In fact, the nomination wasn't seconded by anyone. The two redirects, by you and by Alpha3031, are perfectly sensible alternatives to deletion, but for that to be our course of action, deletion must first be supported by consensus.

Would you have preferred a N/C close? My comment about renomination in one month effectively makes my close identical to a N/C in all but name. The AfD was open for three weeks, and support for deletion never really materialized. Your opinions in AfDs, HighKing, are usually right on the money, and I'm sure this was the case here as well. But as the closer, I am bound by what I can legitimately read as the consensus. You may contest this at DRV, of course, but I think a more productive route would be to renominate in a month, as suggested. Owen× ☎ 20:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Owenx, I'm not at all sure I understand what you mean when you say that the deletion wasn't seconded. Is it not the case that a redirect, by implication, is seconding the deletion? Also my !vote changed from Delete to Redirect as per ATD, generally the community appears to favour redirects and merges rather than out-and-out deletions if a redirect is possible, and in this case it was. As to how you evaluate the Keep !votes, that is entirely up to you as the closing admin. If they're poorly reasoned !votes with arguments that have no solid basis in our guidelines then there's really no reason to give them weight. Evaluating consensus must be done by weighing arguments and not counting !votes, tough gig I imagine, but I suppose I just can't see any weight in the Keep !votes at all and therefore I would have concluded differently, that there was a consensus to Delete, perhaps your viewpoint is different. Thanks again for the insight though, always good to share thoughts. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for pulling the plug. Once you have a gander at 75.127.252.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) you may want to consider extending the block. There's been nothing but disruption and ugliness since its first edit, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 15:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out! I just rushed to stop the disruption on AfD. Having now reviewed their history, I extended the block to six months. Owen× ☎ 15:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I very much appreciate it! You'd taken care of it by the time I circled back after trying to undo the mess at List of country subdivision flags in Africa‎. I really wish this LTA would find a new hobby. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 15:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing 75.127.238.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (thanks @Jake Wartenberg) is there a range block possible so we're not playing whack a sock all day? Star Mississippi 15:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tried my hand at a rangeblock. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi and Jake Wartenberg: the editing pattern clearly suggests it is the same vandal. But please note that the two addresses, while falling under the same /19 range, belong to different ISPs, one in NY and one in NJ, and both appear to be static IPs. The 36 hour block is fine, but I'd hold off on longer rangeblocks unless we see vandalism from more IP addresses in that range. Owen× ☎ 15:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would reply to you in the DRV, but the DRV has been closed. I stand by my comment that the appeal was frivolous, but that comment was based on the assumption that we should assume good faith by administrators, and assume that it was more likely that an admin was acting correctly than incorrectly. The one vote for userfication said that the originator could G7 it. It was deleted as G7. The closing administrator acted correctly if it had been in fact tagged for G7. The closing administrator acted incorrectly if they deleted it as G7 without the user requesting it. I chose to assume good faith. Rich Farmbrough assumed that there was some other (erroneous) reason. Some Wikipedia editors routinely distrust admins. I am not one of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I understand. Perhaps we use the term "frivolous" differently. I read the term the way it is used in law, e.g., frivolous lawsuit - without merit, having no reasonable prospect of success. In that sense, I believe the appeal wasn't frivolous. After the fact, we know the appeal was unnecessary, but other than assuming good faith, Rich had no reason to believe the deletion followed process; it looked like it didn't. That said, this could have--and should have--been resolved by Rich asking Fastily for an explanation, as required by DRV Step #2. In that sense, yes, it was frivolous. The DRV could also have been avoided by a closing note mentioning the author tagging the page. At any rate, Rich was quick to withdraw the appeal, and the time wasted was minimal. In the grand scheme of cases that shouldn't have come to DRV, I'll categorize this one as "minimally frivolous". Owen× ☎ 05:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of NCAA Division III independents football records. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Drmies (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Following some discussions I was recommended to come back to you with a message. Thus I come with a request to you, in case it is possible to restore article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Sewell Wright, in my discussion page or in a draft, in order to be able to work on this article and have available the information that has been removed. Thank you very much for your help! Mooon FR (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mooon FR! Thank you for bringing this here. I can't help but notice that you have practically no experience editing Wikipedia articles. What is your plan for working on this draft? Owen× ☎ 16:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used and still use wikipedia more for information. But once I became more familiar with how wikipedia works, in my spare time I contribute to wikipedia to make it better. What relates to the article in question, I would have liked to have the text of the article available to copy and improve it, likewise in the discussion for deletion, a string of sources that I want to use were included. Thank you! Mooon FR (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted not because it needed improvement, but because the subject was found not to meet our notability standards. If you find previously unlisted sources that establish Judith Sewell Wright as meeting WP:NBIO, you are welcome to submit a new draft to WP:AFC. Otherwise, I suggest your time and effort would be better spent on other articles. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I currently do not intend to publish the article in Wikipedia. The request was only to help me restore the article to my talk page so that I don't waste time to write the article from scratch. Your recommendation is certainly welcome and in my spare time I will improve many other articles available in wikipedia. Mooon FR (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a general-purpose web host. If your intention isn't to publish the content here, then it doesn't belong here, even on the Talk page associated with your user account. Owen× ☎ 14:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article will not be kept in the talk page, I will just copy the draft, then I will clean the page. Thank you! Mooon FR (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, I did a complex analysis and identified a number of sources in the TV news. Because they are no longer available online I found them on YouTube.

NewsChannel 5, The Early Show, CBS2 News, WPTZ.

Are any sources available at Chicago Tribune, WGN9, FOX32.

Thus based on the sources that were available in the article, as well as the sources that were presented by other editors in the deletion discussion and the sources that I have identified. We could rewrite the article and republish according to wikipedia policies. Mooon FR (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX Hi. Will it be a problem if I also tag the editors who participated in the discussion for deletion, so that they can do an analysis on the sources I presented above? Mooon FR (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to tag whomever you want on your own Talk page, but here is not the place to work on a new draft. Owen× ☎ 15:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OwenX, in this deletion review (List of British Airways destinations) you recommended tagging the standalone lists with a link to the new RfC, but I'm not sure how to do that. Do you think it would be OK to use Template:Notice for this? I read that that template should be used sparingly though. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sunnya343, I think {{Rfc notice}} is the standard template for this. But I'm not really a tagging template expert. Maybe check with ToadetteEdit or with Nihiltres. Owen× ☎ 12:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies but I haven't heard, or even used this template. Toadette^Edit! 18:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, I will use Template:Rfc notice. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OwenX, I am a bit puzzled by the deletion decision of this article. The article had several secondary WP:GNG references of the nobility Fermor added plus the family has several members that merit WP coverage: Generals+female entrepreneurs+resistance fighters. Buildings owned by family members are quite prominent and still exist. Would you mind explaining the reasons? Thank you in advance. Axisstroke (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My job as the closing admin was not to assess notability, but to assess consensus among valid views of AfD participants. Your persistent bludgeoning of every participant who doesn't share your view might suggest you don't find any view other than your own to be valid, but that is not something I am willing to assist you with. If you believe my read of consensus, rather than the views expressed there, was incorrect, feel free to take this to WP:DRV. Owen× ☎ 16:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanations. I tried sincerely to improve the article. I didn't know that the article itself would not weigh much. Axisstroke (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok fine, happy to no longer wasting time on WP. Axisstroke (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just making sure you know the nom has since been sock blocked (cc @Ravensfire) I'm not contesting the close as I think Notability was borderline anyway, just flagging. Star Mississippi 13:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, neither the nomination nor his other sock's vote there were a factor in my closing. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I fail to see how you saw a consensus here, even less so a consensus for "keep". Six of the participants argued for removing the article from Wikipedia (either as a merge or as a delete), quoting a number of policies, mostly NOTNEWS, RECENT, and NEVENT. Six others wanted to keep it, however all their arguments were based solely on WP:ITSINTHENEWS. I fail to see how the discussion can be termed a consensus. Also, missing from your close is an evaluation of the presented arguments, and thus it falls very close to a supervote. I know you're busy closing discussions, but would you revisit this close? Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment. There was not a single call for an outright deletion. There were two !votes for either merge or delete, and a few others for merge. The choice between keeping the article as is and merging it is an editorial choice, and doesn't require administrative tools. AfD is not a substitute for a merge proposal, and support for merger did not amount to a rough consensus, which meant the only acceptable outcome was Keep, leaving the editorial decision about a possible merge to subsequent discussion.

AfD closers are not required to provide a detailed evaluation of every presented argument. If you believe you are entitled to such, feel free to take this to WP:DRV. Owen× ☎ 22:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, merging is one of the many valid outcomes of the deletion discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Merging#Merge as a result of a deletion discussion. I find it difficult to agree with your interpretation of the AfD as being solely "keep or delete" admin stuff. As far as I see it, deletion discussions are a part of editorial consensus making process, and can have many possible outcomes, such as merge and redirect, no consensus, relist, etc., which you seem to disregard. Any reason for such a narrow reading? — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there was no consensus to merge. Views were evenly split between Keep and Merge, so the only legitimate outcome could be Keep. If you believe a merger is called for, go ahead and start a discussion on the article's Talk page. That is how merge proposals are supposed to be conducted. Owen× ☎ 12:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Invasion of the United States. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,@OwenX please assist with undeletion or draftify this article, I think the award meets WP:GNG Bestways (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bestways,

What account do you normally use for editing? Your current account, created less than a week ago, started editing today, and has a grand total of 8 mainspace edits, which makes me worry you might not have the experience and knowledge to navigate through our notability guidelines and the WP:AFC process. Seeing that two of the participants in the discussion were banned as sockpuppets of User:Wizkizayo makes me concerned about handing a draft to a user with practically zero editing history. If you can find an experienced editor willing to help you with this, I'd be happy to undelete the page to draft. Owen× ☎ 11:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit late now, but honestly, I am surprised it wasn't relisted. I found the delete arguments somewhat floored, with all the secondary sources I found to mix with the primary on the article, that makes up a hell of a lot of sourcing for this footballer, a footballer who has over 100 top flight games recorded in Scotland. That article was in a healthy state, so I really didn't get the nomination, no WP:BEFORE was done from my perspective other than by myself. There was plenty of sources out there, I certainly could have added a dozen sources into the article. So ye, I felt I gave enough of an account for a relist at least. Govvy (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too late; any of my actions can be undone. But what would relisting achieve, exactly? At least two of the four Delete !voters saw your comment there, and one even reviewed the sources you presented. And these aren't exactly clueless randos we're talking about. JoelleJay is one of the most thorough source analyzers we have here, and GiantSnowman, who also went with Delete, is an admin with far more experience than I have. Not a single participant supported your "Lean towards Keep" view. And if relisted, what new information were you planning to present to editors beyond, SIGCOV pfft, you don't need to follow so blindly a policy and yes it's a policy it's not a rule of state?

I understand your frustration, Govvy. Ever since WP:NFOOTBALL has been effectively replaced with WP:NSPORTS2022, things have been a bit of mess when it comes to footballer notability guidelines. But what do you want me or anyone else to do about this? You've been here for as long as I have, and you know as well as I do that "SIGCOV pfft" is not a useful basis for compiling an encyclopedia. Owen× ☎ 11:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DELREVIEW is the appropriate forum. I fully support the AFD consensus. GiantSnowman 17:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Owen, that's not quite the the answer I was looking for from you, I just would like you to maybe consider at least one relist even a four against one can change in an instant. I know the AfD had became somewhat stale and you did close after what was it, four days? I was also disappointed with the turn out, c'est la vie. I just felt there was more than enough for BASIC. Govvy (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the AfD after the full seven days were up. All the timestamps are there for you to verify. As GiantSnowman said, if you believe I made a mistake in interpreting consensus, feel free to take this to WP:DRV. Owen× ☎ 20:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sakhir Formula 3 round. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OwenX. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Marchjuly (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OwenX, I saw that someone tried to recreate 2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw two days ago so it brought that article back to mind. As the original deleting admin, could you restore it (the original version) to User:Habst/2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw so I can evaluate if a deletion review would be warranted?

Thank you, --Habst (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you only intend to review it for a possible DRV, then undeletion of history under a page protect is the normal way of handling this. I'll go ahead and do that now. Please let me know once you no longer need it. Owen× ☎ 12:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX, thank you. I anticipate making a decision and taking action on this some time in the next week. --13:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC) Habst (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Glad I can help! Owen× ☎ 13:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OwenX, it seems like the deletion decision will be endorsed. Can you please userify the page after the DRV is completed then, this time not to review it for DRV but simply to have the wikitext preserved so it could be further improved and possibly eventually submitted to AfC if the improvements are substantial? Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By convention, this will be done by whoever closes the DRV. Being involved, I don't want to jump the gun while the discussion is still open. Also, I believe the views there are for draftifying the page, not userfying it. This encourages more editors to participate, and automatically enters the page into the AfC queue. But feel free to ping me again (or the DRV closer) if the closer doesn't draftify it. Owen× ☎ 12:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you email me a copy of the deleted page. thank you in advance Solons01 (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. Owen× ☎ 11:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi could you email me a copy of this page also please.

I do find the decision to delete the page strange since it was clearly notable and the topic is the subject of much academic and public debate. The article included a list that aggregated information that is difficult to get elsewhere. A cursory google search would show that the topic of tV deals in football is very much discussed in Europe. However most media articles only cover the top 5 leagues. This list covered a long list of UEFA members. I'd have to ask if the people questioning the notability of the article like football. Thomasjtormey (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thomasjtormey, it looks like you haven't enabled the email feature for your account. Owen× ☎ 12:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Owen does it work now? Have you reconsidered on the page? Thomasjtormey (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Sent; sorry about the long wait! Owen× ☎ 12:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as I noted in the AFD, please WP:REFUND the article back into my user space per WP:ATD-I for new article. Raladic (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. Owen× ☎ 20:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Raladic (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You state in your close for this AfD that in your opinion "Once we do that, the rough consensus to keep becomes a very clear consensus." But the rough consensus is surely 17-11 to delete. I don't see how you can find a very clear consensus to keep in that AfD, however you dice it. And I do not see anything in the close statement that acknowledges what the sources say that the construction of grooming as a distinct offence and a racial crime threat has been shown to lie on insubstantial foundations: misconceptions, anecdote, opinion and the deliberate manipulation of limited statistics of dubious provenance. I would like to understand if you dismissed arguments that sources say there is no subject here as !votes that you discarded for claiming the "content being offensive". Could you please revisit this? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this here, Sirfurboy. I'm afraid I don't see 17 valid "Delete" !votes. When someone says something like, "Delete unless it is renamed", as a minimum I have to discard this, as a bad title is not a policy based reason to delete a page. I'd understand if you refused to count such !votes as an implied Keep, but no closing admin should count them as a valid Delete. And there were quite a few of that kind. In the end, I found only five legitimate, P&G-anchored !votes to delete. You've been here as long as I have, and you know we don't close based on counting bolded words.

As for your other concern, my job as a closer does not include reviewing sources, unless there is dispute about the validity of the source itself. Several participants reviewed the sources and expressed their views based on those. If sources indicate that racial classification of grooming is a form of misinformation, then this should be spelled out in the article, properly referenced. This, by itself, does not prevent the topic from meeting our notability criteria. Either way, your argument has scientific merit, while those simply saying "Delete because I find this offensive!" don't have a leg to stand on, P&G-wise. Owen× ☎ 21:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your rationale you say of the "Delete unless ..." arguments, once we discard those the rough consensus to keep becomes a very clear consensus. That suggests you already found a rough keep consensus before considering their nature, and you were confirmed in that view by discarding such !votes. There was not a rough keep consensus that could be confirmed by discarding those. The rough consensus was clearly the other way. I am clearly not saying that I believe we should just count votes. What I am saying is that you seem to have already found a rough consensus where there was not one, and then confirmed your view by discarding some of the !votes. Rather, your rationale needs to show why there was sufficient reason to overturn a rough consensus to delete to a clear consensus to keep. I think you might want to look at that again. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I wasn't clear enough in my earlier reply. The rough consensus was achieved after discarding non-P&G-based !votes. There is no point in assessing consensus before we do that, as that usually involves counting a lot of "IDONTLIKEIT" votes, which tells us nothing about consensus among valid views. So after discarding all those, we're left with 5 valid Deletes, and 11 Keeps. But then, when instead of discarding, you count the "Delete unless..." or "fix the content" ones as Keep, you end up with a very clear consensus to keep. I hope this clarifies things. Owen× ☎ 21:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't clarify much, sorry. Discarding 12 of the delete !votes as IDONTLIKEIT and not excluding a single keep as not being policy based before further discarding the "delete unless" !votes seems like a massive misreading of the room there. I do not see how you are able to reach that conclusion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where I claimed to have discarded any !vote as IDONTLIKEIT. I explained why counting votes before sifting through rationales is pointless. Anyway, I gave you as much clarity as I can about my closing. If you believe it was incorrect, feel free to take it to WP:DRV. Owen× ☎ 21:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a list of delete !votes you consider invalid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that is not how this works. Owen× ☎ 22:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, yours was one of the few that had a valid, P&G-based deletion rationale, and was duly counted towards the Delete side. Owen× ☎ 22:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many keep !votes did you discard as non-P&G-based? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One. Owen× ☎ 22:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OwenX, I didn't read through this discussion carefully enough to know how I would have closed it but I thank you for being willing to take on tough AFD discussions like this one. From my reading, I could tell this one would likely end up at DRV no matter what the closure was. There was inevitably going to be a lot of participants unhappy with the result. I reaklize that this fact is not relevant to a closure decision, it's just an observation. Some AFD discussions are just divisive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, Liz. I figured someone had to close this one, and I'm over at DRV every day anyway... Owen× ☎ 01:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for taking on a tough discussion and showing a willingness to put P&G above head counting, and then, equally importantly, engaging after the closure on your rationale.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting you RE: the above Article, Educational Basketball which was deleted on Friday August 30th 2024. Myself and others were in still the process of working on it and were shocked to discover its speedy removal. I am formally requesting that the Educational Basketball Article be un-deleted so that the additions/expansions can continue. I understand Wikipedia to be an Online Internet Encyclopedia - it is therefore my view that good articles will take time to build. Please understand that in the midst of our everyday professions some of us lead extremely busy lives hence it may not always be easy to work within this all important space at accelerated speed. Furthermore, please bear in mind that in this part of the world, the constant electricity disconnections, power outages, tower crashes, internet and cell phone problems pose their own difficulties. Thank you. ~~~~ GraceAndFavor (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GraceAndFavor,

There was no "speedy removal" of the article. It underwent a four week long debate at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Educational_Basketball, and was deleted by consensus among participants expressing valid concerns about the notability of the topic. This had nothing to do with how the article was written at the time, and improving the content will not address the issue.

I understand the reality of electrical power and access to the internet in your part of the world. However, there is no need to use Wikipedia's main space area as your draft scratchpad while you work on the page. Please see WP:DRAFT about how to create a draft outside the main encyclopedia space, and then use WP:AFC to have your draft reviewed by an experienced editor to decide if it is ready for inclusion. This way you can avoid having a half-finished article deleted. But again, there is no point in doing any work on a draft unless you can find independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage about the topic.

I hope this helps! Owen× ☎ 14:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Hi @OwenX, thanks for your cooperation last week. I did decide to make my first DRV on this, here is the official notice. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we revisit the delete decision? I just don't think we heard from enough Australian editors.

Robbiegibbons (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's worse than that. We didn't hear from any Australians who lived through the 1854 events.

On Wikipedia, we don't rely on expert witnesses. Assuming that merely living in the same geographical region where the events took place somehow imparts special knowledge is insulting to the thousands of editors who spend their time and effort going over historical records to familiarize themselves with the subject. And your implied assumption that Australians are here to "defend" articles about non-notable Australia-related topics is offensive to anyone who is here to write an encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion was open for three weeks - three times longer than the standard duration. If we need to hear from more editors, it's from those who care about our notability guidelines, not those driven by misdirected patriotism. Owen× ☎ 06:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it hasn't even got anything to do with patriotism. It's just that take the List of Eureka Stockade defenders. That article was also nominated for deletion but it was retained. And that involved some of the same objections we see here. I just thought that this article ought to have been retained as well. Robbiegibbons (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did we hear from enough Australians on that one? Did we hear from too many? The whole idea of giving different weight to the opinion of editors based on their nationality smacks of bigotry. Owen× ☎ 10:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if I don't like it I suppose I can always ask for a review Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you are well. I just wanted to request your help as an administrator in merging the article Killing of Aysenur Eygi which was created shortly after I created the article Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi. I suggest we keep the article's name "Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi" as is the case with similar killings such as Tom Hurndall, Rachel Corrie, Iain Hook etc. Thanks. Lavictus (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lavictus, and welcome to Wikipedia! The merger you propose seems sensible. But rather than jump into it, we normally conduct a discussion about it, to see if there is consensus among other editors for such a merger. Please take a look at WP:MERGE, which will explain how to propose a merge on WP:PM. If there is consensus to merge, I'm sure one of the participants in the discussion will be happy to help you with the actual merger. This doesn't require any administrative privileges. Owen× ☎ 22:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. I posted a request on WP:PM around an hour ago or so, actually. I just wanted to speed up the process to avoid confusion with duplicate articles and because it shouldn't be a contentious merge. Lavictus (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies! You are one step ahead of me, apparently. I've added a merge notice on the source page. You should now open a discussion about it on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 22:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I fixed a minor mistake you made in the notice (link went to a deleted article as it was another duplicate page of this figure), but all is good now. Please feel free to add a comment if you would like to. Lavictus (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! Owen× ☎ 22:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Hello and thank you for your work. You close that AfD as Delete (I would have thought a relist might have been a good idea but never mind). I would have thought at least a redirect was warranted. Anyway, I strongly disagree with your deletion of the page(s) that were redirecting there, as is the case of Mighty Raju (a Redirect decided at AfD.. closed by yourelf). I am therefore requesting that you please kindly undo the deletion of articles that were redirecting to the list and redirect them directly to the network. Thank you very much. Note: I already mentioned multiple times, including during the AfD about that list, that deleting perfectly standard lists lead to this kind of issues. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mushy Yank! Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I would have been happy to close that AfD as a redirect, but there was no support for this view on the AfD. As a closer, my job is not to pick what I believe is the best outcome, but to implement what the consensus view was. Closing that AfD as a redirect despite no !votes supporting it would have likely been challenged and overturned--correctly!--at WP:DRV.

However, if you believe there is merit in redirecting the page to Pogo (TV channel), you can go ahead and recreate the redirect. A recent RfC confirmed that an article deleted at AfD and recreated as a redir is not subject to G4. It might still be deleted at RfD, of course, but you'll get a chance to have your say there, if that happens.

I appreciate your dedicated participation in AfDs. Let me know if you need any help! Owen× ☎ 13:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your reply. Oh, I do believe your close was correct given the existing !votes (although some !votes and even the rationale for deletion were partially based on inaccurate statements (the alleged absence of original programmes, for example) and even though lists like that one are extremely common.) My concern was (and in general with those page, is) more about pages redirecting there. I will try to find identify them (there were 2 or 3 programmes concerned, if I remember well) and redirect them to the network but it's typically to avoid this kind of work that I suggest to keep those pages. I'm also concerned about all the AfD-decided Redirect that get deleted in similar situations. Thanks again.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the recreation of the list is protected. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't notice that. But seeing as the phrase "List of programmes broadcast by Pogo" is an unlikely search term, is there much benefit to creating the redirect there to Pogo (TV channel), assuming the history will remain deleted? Individual programs like Mighty Raju already redirect directly to Pogo (TV channel), so I'm not sure we'd be gaining much by adding a redir from the deleted list. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual programs like Mighty Raju already redirect directly to Pogo (TV channel) - by which I mean, you have correctly set them up that way. :) Owen× ☎ 13:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, I did redirect that one but I have lost track of the other deleted series so I can't "fix" them (and that is the other main issue regarding deletion of this type of lists, in my opinion (the other being they're a pretty standard split ( I know I'm rambling)). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this list from OwenX's deletion log help? Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I would let you know that there is a dead link to the deleted article "Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion" in the Eureka Rebellion series box and in the Battle of the Eureka Stockade and People of the Eureka Rebellion templates. You might like to fix that up now I'm newly retired from wikipedia.Robbiegibbons (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Fixed. Thanks for letting me know! Owen× ☎ 13:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that you implied in your closure that if voters made two arguments, !votes could be disregarded in their entirety on the basis of the weaker argument. In my opinion, this is not how arguments should be evaluated. It is not your job to choose the easiest, most convenient route for you to come to a summary of the arguments, but one that reflects the strength of the arguments - all of them! This is why they are !votes rather than votes. I'm remarking on this not because I believe the closure needs to be reviewed, but because bad precedent needs to be avoided in how discussions are evaluated. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:5084 (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if voters made two arguments, !votes could be disregarded in their entirety on the basis of the weaker argument - where do you see this implication? Which !voters made two arguments, and I implied I discarded them based on the weaker of the two? I'm not saying this never happened, but it would help to see a concrete example so that I can better address the issue. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 00:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording was: Many !votes on both sides were discarded as not being based on policy or guidelines. Those include arguments such as, [followed by a list] You did not say you discarded arguments, but that you discarded !votes if they contained one of the phrases in your list. The community has emphasised time and again that board items such as AfDs are discussions, not polls. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:5084 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see the confusion now. I used "!votes" in one sentence, and "arguments" in the next, when I simply meant them as synonyms. To the best of my recollection, I did not discard any !vote unless all the arguments they expressed were without merit. Your point about discussions vs. polls is correct, and indeed you'd often see me closing AfDs based on the weight of arguments rather than mere nose count. If you think it is worthwhile, I can amend my wording on that AfD closing statement. Owen× ☎ 00:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I (hope I) communicated, I think it's good to have closures in line with policy and not leave precedent that deviates from that principle. In other words, we both now seem to think the amendment would make sense... 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:5084 (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. I hope my amendment captured the spirit of our exchange here. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Owen× ☎ 23:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had not seen this discussion until now, but (as the original nominator, and someone who encouraged the closing admin to disregard !votes, including those in favour of my own position, if the rationales were invalid) I appreciate the point being made here, and I'd like to thank you both for the discussion and subsequent clarification. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the constructive discussion and outcome. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:5084 (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please guide me on how to access the deleted page for my personal use or storing it? Mohit Dokania (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y I just emailed you a copy of the last version of that page before it was deleted. Owen× ☎ 12:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Global Credit Data. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hentheden (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking a DRAFT refund of Minnesota–Penn_State_football_rivalry, moved to Draft:Governor's Victory Bell. I'm NOT seeking an undo of the AFD.

When I previously requested this content for further development in draftspace, it was requested that I provide new significant coverage of the rivalry/trophy. I am now providing that:

"Game trophy doesn't ring a bell" York Daily Record, 1997

This article was not previously discussed in any AFD and provides WP:SIGCOV of the trophy.

The content was previously draftified without controversy for a different user. I plan to do a better job making sure the future trophy article meets GNG with the above source, others I brought to the AFD, 1, 2, 3, and perhaps those already cited in the deleted article (that I do not yet have access to).

Thanks, PK-WIKI (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. Owen× ☎ 15:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Owen. While I am not emotionally invested in seeing that article deleted, I find it shocking that you and apparently another administrator, Liz, saw merit in comments in such as this one. And not only did you see merit but in fact found that these sources-would've-existed-in-another-world speculations outweighed WP:GNG ("has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Sandstein noted that nobody made any effort to show that the article met Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, yet somehow in the end there was "no consensus" to delete it. What's up with that? Surtsicna (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I hear you. Sandstein was dead-on with his assessment. However, deletion at AfD can only happen with consensus. Had I discarded the Keep !votes and closed as Delete, my closure would have been overturned at DRV. A closing admin has some discretion as to how !votes are weighted, but if you go too far, it is seen as a "supervote". I wish there was more I could do to help on this. Owen× ☎ 22:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am even more confused now. WP:CLOSEAFD says: "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." Which of the Keep votes are reasonable, logical, and policy-based? Which policy or guideline says that we should have articles on topics we speculate would be covered in reliable sources in an alternate universe? The WP:GNG guideline we have says the exact opposite. It seems that a tally is exactly what led to the current outcome. Surtsicna (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take this to WP:DRV. Owen× ☎ 09:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Thanks for your explanation in any case. Surtsicna (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OwenX: How goes it? At the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Institute of Fashion Technology Raebareli Afd, the article National Institute of Fashion Technology, New Delhi seems to have been left behind. Its not been included in the Afd, but strangely it still has an Afd tag on it, which points to that Afd. No mention of it was included in the Afd. Can you please take a look and expedite. scope_creep^Talk 17:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention! It looks like the nom placed the AfD template on that page, but forgot to include it in the mass nomination, which means the AfD result cannot be automatically applied to it. I removed the template. The page can still be blanked and redirected editorially, without an AfD. Feel free to do that yourself, with an edit summary linking to the AfD. Owen× ☎ 17:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @OwenX: scope_creep^Talk 09:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Owen, I wanted to thank you for your comment at that AfD but then saw you'd reverted it due to your having earlier relisted the discussion. I didn't realize there was guidance forbidding relisters from later participating in AfDs? I was only aware of the requirement that the closers must be uninvolved. I also really wish I'd noticed this before the close since I hadn't seen the blatant source misrepresentation in the penultimate !vote (claiming an "article" consisting of a few grainy pictures from one event and a single completely unrelated one-sentence subheadline was a "discussion of the subject's achievements")...
Anyway, regardless, I also wanted to register my appreciation in general for your conscientiousness at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, JoelleJay! The relist/involved issue straddles the gray area of policy. The policy says editor qualifications for relisting are the same as those for closing, suggesting that WP:INVOLVED would also apply in such a case. While it's clear that an editor shouldn't close--and probably shouldn't relist--a discussion where they have previously !voted, it's not as clear whether they may !vote in a discussion they previously relisted. You'd have to agree that the optics, or "appearance of impropriety" as WP:NACINV calls it, are bad. Had this been dragged to DRV, my devoted, diligent detractors would have pounced on this, with accusations of bias and abuse of admin rights.

All that said, I doubt this AfD would have been closed differently even if I left my !vote there. And even if closed as Delete, chances are it would subsequently be REFUNDed to draft at someone's request, then moved to userspace to evade G13, and ultimately snuck back into mainspace, perhaps under a gamed title. There's a sizeable contingent of editors who see the project as little more than a sports almanac. I don't have to tell you that, of course; you do more than anyone here to battle this trend. I really appreciate your tireless work here, JoelleJay! Owen× ☎ 12:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You recently deleted the Rosemary's Baby (franchise) article, though the discussion ongoing there had various input from multiple contributors stating why it should not be deleted. Why did you delete it?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DisneyMetalhead! Our deletion policy states that pages nominated for AfD are deleted based on consensus among participants arguing on the basis of policy and guidelines. Yes, there was various input from multiple contributors, but most calling to keep the article were not relying on guideline-based arguments, as I explained in my closing rationale. If you believe I erred in my assessment of consensus, feel free to take this to WP:DRV. Cheers, Owen× ☎ 11:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a response. As it was an ongoing discussion (i.e.: there was no consensus yet), wouldn't this be considered premature? I appreciate the direction. Cheers m8! DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Premature"? AfDs are scheduled to run for seven days. This one stayed open for 21 days. Discussions are not kept open indefinitely just because they haven't reached the conclusion you were hoping for. Owen× ☎ 18:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rosemary's Baby (franchise). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I understand that there is usually a time-limit. What I meant by "premature", is that in a deletion request is it common practice to just delete the page though there isn't a concensus? I had thought the deletion request would be cancelled, asking for more input from editors(?).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just a comment on your closure. There seems to be a perennial problem with the creation of next eleciton articles - and I've generally supported delete in the absence of reliable sourcing (in line with the exception in WP:CRYSTAL). However, recently I've noticed a number of times where these articles are now redirected to the parliamentary body itself - as I mentioned this seems to me a good solution to the wider problem. I'm not leaving this message to ask you to change your closure, just wanted to give you a heads up that there are redirects (eg Goa Kerala) for elections a long way out. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Goldsztajn! I wasn't aware of that practice. I did give your proposed Redirect due consideration; I'm a big fan of ATDs. But in the end, the nom's objection to it, the absence of support from anyone else, and the fact that searching for the term "Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election" already brings up Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly as its second result, I figured that the only advantage of a redir over deletion is making it easier to restore the old article when the time comes. To that end, come February 2026, if you or anyone wishes to continue working on the page where it was left off, I'd be happy to draftify it myself. The page for Goa, by the way, was recreated as a redirect over the deleted article, so the history is inaccessible to non-admins anyway. Owen× ☎ 11:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your comments closing this AfD were unnecessarily critical, yes TNT is an essay and not policy but many essays reflect widespread viewpoints. My nom also addressed the lack of sources. If the topic was clearly, unambiguously notable then of course I would have fixed the problems myself. Having said this, I'm not sure consensus was favouring deletion given the article had been substantially changed since the nomination. AusLondonder (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the harsh language, AusLondonder. Yes, you did mention the lack of sources, but this was mixed in with a bunch of irrelevant arguments. Your nominations are usually great, but I think you'll have to agree this wasn't one of your better ones:

1. Absolutely no sources - relevant, but laconic. No sources cited in the article, or did you carry out a WP:BEFORE and found nothing?
2. Article is in an enormous mess - an editorial issue, not an AfD justification.
3. and has been completely hijacked to refer to something other than its title - can be fixed by either rewriting or by moving; no deletion needed.
4. WP:TNT - the essay calls for deletion as means to rewriting an article about a notable topic. If you believe the topic is notable, why are you calling for deletion? Yes, I know TNT reflects a widespread viewpoint - a widespread oft-misdirected viewpoint. There has never been consensus for using administrative tools to facilitate cleanup. AfD is not cleanup, and we do not "blow up" articles on notable topics just so we can look at a blank page when we start over. No one is stopping any editor from boldly blanking the page to create a better version. There is no need to delete the page history, and in some cases deletion might be a violation of our attribution policy.

I agree that the topic was not clearly, unambiguously notable, nor was it clearly, unambiguously non-notable. I saw a rough consensus not to leave the page as a standalone article - in agreement with your nomination. I thought you'd be pleased with the result. If you thought the article no longer needed to be deleted, why didn't you withdraw your nomination? I closed that AfD almost five days after the last !vote was entered. Owen× ☎ 11:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, the nomination may have been a bit poorly worded in focusing too much on the current state of the article. While I wasn't sure what direction consensus was headed I think a redirect is probably appropriate which will satisfy most participants. AusLondonder (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm relieved to see we are on the same page, as is usually the case when I see you at AfD. Owen× ☎ 17:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Owenx It was disappointing to see the article get deleted as it was unique for NZ. Plus the redirect it was put to the article on Gloriavale has nothing mentioned about the airline that I can find after reading it from top to bottom. So I don't see the point in the redirect at all. CHCBOY (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are encouraged to add content into the Gloriavale Christian Community article, which you can copy from the pre-redirected version of the Air West Coast page, which is still accessible, not "deleted". Please be sure to copy the cited sources for each fact you copy. I understand you are disappointed with the outcome, but Wikipedia works by consensus, and the consensus was against having a page for Air West Coast. I thought you'd be please that I kept the page history intact, per your request. Oh well. Owen× ☎ 14:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Owen, Thanks for letting me know about this. I did not know until now that this is possible. After checking the View History tab it can be still seen. I will look into doing a section in the Gloriavale article cheers CHCBOY (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OwenX, ref Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merit (law), transwiki-ing is where content is moved from one wiki to another. A cross-namespace soft redirect without content being moved is just a redirect (No need to mod this AFD tho). Cheers, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are. I fixed the closing language at the AfD. Thank you! Owen× ☎ 06:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Owenx, I was hoping you'd take another look at the Afd you closed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lectka enantioselective beta-lactam synthesis. I can follow your reasoning, but I don't believe a redirect makes sense here, nor do I think that's what the consensus is. Most of the participants were open to some type of merge if material could be identified to merge, but none was identified. I know your close left open that possibility, but without any evidence a merge is to actually happen, a simple redirect is inappropriate because the topic is not discussed at the target, and none of the participants explicitly favored a redirect. I think the best outcome here is a soft delete, such that material could be merged if a user were so interested at some point in the future (I am not). Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mdewman6! The problem with a soft delete is that it is reverted at the valid request of any editor, which is why it is never used if there's any objection to it. In our case, we have @Pygos: who objects to deletion with a valid argument. If Pygos (pinged above) agrees to your proposal, I'll be happy to change the AfD outcome to delete, or to relist it to get more opinions. Otherwise, I don't really see the harm in leaving this as a redirect, with the page history available to anyone wishing to carry out a selective merge. The guideline threshold for retaining a redirect is much lower than for retaining an article. Owen× ☎ 12:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Greater Manchester bus route 216. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TL9027 (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thank you. I'm already fixing your malformed appeal there. Owen× ☎ 23:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Owenx. I was wondering if you would be amenable to userfying List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton and List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Michael Schumacher, which were deleted as a result of this discussion. My intention would be to add the basic lists of wins into List of career achievements by Lewis Hamilton and List of career achievements by Michael Schumacher (similar to the existing lists of Formula One pole positions and podium finishes in those articles). I believe the lists would have been added into those articles, if the standalone "List of wins" articles hadn't existed. It seems incongruous to me that List of career achievements by Michael Schumacher contains a list of his Formula Three and Formula 3000 wins and his World Sportscar Championship wins, but not a list of his Formula One wins, considering he is best known as a Formula One driver. Thank you. DH85868993 (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: User:DH85868993/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton and User:DH85868993/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Michael Schumacher. Owen× ☎ 11:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! DH85868993 (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have draftifyed this for a week? Your closing statement clearly shows his notability is currently questionable. SportingFlyer T·C 01:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to move the article out of mainspace. Besides, we routinely keep articles with questionable notability in mainspace for four weeks while undergoing AfD, which would have happened had I relisted it, so I'm not sure what would be gained by moving this one to draft for two weeks. Owen× ☎ 07:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the editor who created the page is now adding insane things to it. Marquardtika (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me to this, Marquardtika! I placed a WP:BLUELOCK there to prevent non-extended-confirmed editors from editing the page for two weeks. Please alert me or file at WP:AN/I if this persists. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 17:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but redirect? I did explain why the redirect doesn't work, it will mask that he is mentioned on other club articles, the redirect will just be hiding that. It would have been better to keep or delete in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have indeed presented your opinion at the AfD, but it was not supported by other participants basing their view on P&G. If you prefer the page to be deleted, your best bet is to take this to RfD. Owen× ☎ 11:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that your close reflects consensus. Jay's !vote stated I would Support the redirect back to the same target ONLY if mention is added back, and would Oppose the redirect if mention could not be added (emphasis mine). Yue stated that they were !voting redirect per Jay, so relying on the totality of their Jay's !vote. Now getting down to the substantive issue. When you closed redirect and subsequently added mention of Mick to Socialist Alternative (Australia) the source you used only mentions Mick in reference to the Austudy Five and does not mention their relationship to Socialist Alternative (Australia). Therefore original research has been introduced into Socialist Alternative (Australia). Given Jay wrote "Oppose the redirect if mention could not be added" which I take to mean that any adding must follow WP:PAG and be appropriately referenced. TarnishedPath^talk 03:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is another reference for Armstrong's role as a founder of SAlt, listed as the second item in the Further reading section. But by all means, feel free to replace my cite with a better one. The problem with this type of contingent !votes is that we don't delete a redirect if its target can be fixed editorially, and we don't delete an article if it can reasonably be turned into a useful redirect. I've just added the reference you mentioned at the AfD. It would literally have taken you less time to do so yourself than it did to write your comment above. Frankly, your effort to remove Armstrong's name from Wikipedia comes across as WP:TENDENTIOUS. Please do not remove his name from the SAlt article just so it ends up at RfD, as happened with the AfD. Either improve the target page by finding better sourcing, or failing that, nominate the redirect as is to RfD. Owen× ☎ 11:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the links source myself as I was a bit iffy about it given that it is a publication of Socialist Alliance (Australia). Given the history of that organisation and International Socialist Organisation (Australia) and Socialist Alternative I'm up in the air about whether it could be called independent. However if it's added into the article I'm not going to challenge it.

I'm sorry if me removing Armstrong came across as Tendentious. I removed him simply because his relationship wasn't sourced and I had left citation needed tags on the article for some time. It was only afterwards that I considered the redirect. TarnishedPath^talk 12:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Let's hope this is a solution that the community is comfortable with. Please keep in mind that for mentioning a fact on an article, the requirement is for verifiability, rather than the notability required for a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 12:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OwenX, I'm one of the participants from the Ancient TL AfD last week. I appreciate you wading through that wall of text with all the COI editors and peculiar vitriol to shepherd things to a close, and I also appreciate your detailed closing statement. However, I'm a little confused by the part of the closing statement where you say NJOURNALS Criterion #2 refers to citing the journal, not the journal appearing as part of a citation for a paper published there. Is the idea that satisfying C2 would require frequent citations that say According to The Journal of Underwater Basket Weaving... and that it's not sufficient for the citations to say According to Smith (1987)... where Smith (1987) is a paper published in the Journal of Underwater Basket Weaving? Botterweg (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this here, Botterweg. Yes, that is how I read the NJOURNALS essay. If you scroll down to the Remarks section of the essay, it says, C2 may be satisfied, for example, if the journal is frequently quoted in conventional media (e.g. The New York Times) as an expert source in a particular area. This definitely sounds like the citation must reference the journal as an expert source, rather than papers published in it or researchers who routinely publish there. I wish the community would come to some sort of consensus about the notability of scientific journals, as I'm sure you are. But until this happens, we are pretty much stuck with GNG and some general hints from the highly contested NJOURNALS essay. Owen× ☎ 17:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the reply. I gotta say, though, I'm really not sure I share that reading of C2. In my experience, journals exist as collections of articles and I don't think I've ever seen one cited in its own right. Do you have any suggestions for where these issues could be pursued constructively? That was only my second journal-related AfD and I definitely feel like I walked into the middle of something. Botterweg (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're saying, and your thoughts are shared by many here. Researchers normally cite papers, not journals, which makes it almost impossible for a journal to meet our current notability standards. However, despite running RfCs about it, consensus was never reached, and we're stuck with an ambiguous essay, and general guidelines that keep most journals out of WP. You're welcome to start another RfC about this, or contest my close at WP:DRV if you think I misinterpreted consensus. I'd love to see a clearer version of NJOURNALS become an official guideline, but my views on this, like yours, don't have enough community support to bring about change. Owen× ☎ 18:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Letting you know I started a deletion review for this article. I also wanna emphasize that even though I disagree pretty strongly with your judgment here, I recognize and appreciate and respect the thought and the work you put in, both into this particular case and more generally. Botterweg (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Botterweg! This could certainly benefit from a larger audience. Owen× ☎ 19:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please can review because this player professional football player 188.93.112.239 (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this you again, Adope26? You know you're not allowed to edit here. Owen× ☎ 14:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hi @OwenX,

I know the article has not been up to the mark and I was improving the article. I am following what the other respected editors were asking and suggesting. So, I request you to kindly review this decision. The Author has multiple publication on Korean culture in Korean language. Also, a Korean Wikipedia page of this author exist. Kindly guide and if possible accept the request. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThePerfectYellow (talk page watcher) (Non-administrator comment) Just a note that different language Wikipedias have different notability standards. Just because someone/something has an article in one language doesn't mean they'll qualify for an article in another language. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ThePerfectYellow,

The problem with the article wasn't how it was written, but the absence of independent sources about the subject that provide significant coverage about him. Rewriting will not fix that problem, I'm afraid. And seeing as you were the only one on the AfD arguing to keep the page, it wasn't a marginal case. And as I dream of horses pointed out, different language projects have different notability thresholds, so the existence of the Korean language article is no indication that we should have an English language one. Owen× ☎ 16:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this close. I don't think there was a policy based rationale for keeping the article as it hinged on the artist recording albums with a notable record label under an WP:SNG guideline, which was successfully rebutted (ie not a notable label, and the sourcing was all not independent to things like amazon by the commenter who made the argument). All the votes after this were delete votes, and the source analysis was strong. Please relist again to allow for a clearer consensus.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment of the Keep !votes - I don't think they can be discarded offhand. But I will revert my close and relist to get a better consensus, as you request. Owen× ☎ 19:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In December 2023 you participated in a deletion discussion on Bybit. That article has now been recreated and been renominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bybit (2nd nomination). I am notifying all participants in the previous AfD. Thanks. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OwenX,

I hope that you are well. I was just reviewing the AFD log for today and had seen all of those AFDs for schools which were nominated by Ong Kai Jin a week ago. I wanted to let you know that when an editor has mass-nominated a dozen or more articles for AFD discussions with a cookie-cutter deletion rationale that is short and weak, there is a precendent for closing them as Keep if no editor has participated in the discussion arguing for a deletion. Although it is common to call these outcomes "Procedural Keeps", they actually fit Speedy Keep more than Procedural closes. The thought is that with mass nomination and the exact same, brief deletion rationale, it might be grounds for a speedy keep if Nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question or the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion or The nomination is completely erroneous. It's also assumed with most mass nominations that no BEFORE has been done prior to nomination.

I haven't reviewed all of these discussions but I did note that some of had arguments for Deletion added so they would not be eligible for a Speedy Keep. But I saw that an editor who frequents AFD discussions did propose a procedural closes for these discussions based on the identical nominations and this has been accepted as a resolution in the past for cases when this has happened. I'm not going to take any action on these discussion since they were just relisted but I wanted to let you know that procedural closes have occurred in the past in these kinds of situations, especially when there has been little or no participation.

Thank you for all of the work you do with AFDs on such a consistent basis. I hope you have a great weekend! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads-up, Liz! I wasn't aware of this precedent. The problem with this case is that quite a few of the mass-nominated pages may actually fail NSCHOOL, as evidenced by !votes from experienced editors. So while we don't want to encourage this type of lazy nomination, I think there's limited harm in allowing them to sit for a week before the ones that pass are closed as Keep/NC. Either way, I'd like to use this opportunity to thank Sirfurboy for catching those and preventing their accidental sweep by a less discerning soft-deletion.

P.S.: I hope you won't abandon AfD once elected to Arbcom! ;) Owen× ☎ 14:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nail123Real (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe I made a mistake, I'd be happy to explain my reasoning. But you'll have to be more specific. Owen× ☎ 20:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

okay Nail123Real (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Owen. The Shakir Pichler redirection to "The Bamboos" page made no sense. His other band The Howlin' MoonDoggies are even more well-known internationally to this day and released a lot more.

The original author of the page received a message from Shakir via Instagram saying he was horrified at the drama and to please not edit anything as she seemed to not understand and argued too much.

After receiving multiple messages from people about this, he put out a public social blast asking if anyone not connected him want's to take over and fix his Wiki page responsibly they can have a look at it. I have taken over and spent yesterday cleaning up and after Shakir agreed to allow use of some of his magazine and newspaper interviews, they provide WP:SIGCOV and reliable sources which was the trigger for all this which I believe was the problem in the first place.

I would love to take over and make sure everything on the page adheres to Wikipedia standards. Please allow my reverse-edit and extension for review with new information that has been added. Or if you read what I have added perhaps a decision to .Keep would be even better. Thank you for your understanding. 157.211.87.97 (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christine, being blocked from editing on Wikipedia means that you, Christine, may not use any account here, nor edit while being logged out. Your blatant disregard for our policies and the warnings you received from multiple admins here makes it difficult to take your requests seriously. Owen× ☎ 23:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the reply but I don't feel that Shakir should have to pay the price for MY mistakes in trying to argue my points *albeit not very well.

I was trying to listen to advice and I thought I was addressing them but wiki is really difficult for someone like me and I wont be doing any more editing that's for sure.

Shakir's last message to me was that he was not very happy when he saw all the comments in the afd and said he will get a music and film editor he was recommended to take over the page if it can be restored.

I know you are busy but if you could possibly take a look at the last revision with the links to magazine interviews with him and other stuff I put in the 'further reading' section etc and felt like doing a couple of edits to create in-line citations to them I think the page would be all good.

Or if you can reverse the afd and allow whoever Shakir has ben offered to edit to do all that would also work.

You are right, I should have tried to do things in a more concise manner but the last revision before the page being redirected and afd closed had a lot of new sources uploaded and I really hoped an nice savvy wiki editor would place them properly for me in best-practice wiki format.

They do show he is WP:SIGCOV

Thanks for your understanding.

Cx 157.211.83.46 (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 11. —Cryptic 08:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you review the closing statement for this AfD? I think you may have mixed it up with another page, or perhaps just pasted the wrong link as the merge target. pburka (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thank you for catching this! I hope I fixed everything now. Owen× ☎ 14:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reward for hard work at AfD is complaints of course. Sorry to trouble you, but would you be so kind as to explain your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apt Records? Of course I think my argument is correct and couldn't possibly be wrong in the slightest (please note sarcasm directed towards myself), but I presented multiple independent, in-depth, reliable sources which were not refuted. Thereby negating the other arguments (delete, merge) and by strength of argument I think the consensus would be keep. Of course since these sources had only two days for examination by other editors I think a re-list would be entirely appropriate. I don't understand the close as "merge" since even numerically the vote is 1-delete, 2 merge, and 2 keep. What about the merge votes make them stronger from a policy basis than the others? Again, sorry to trouble you, and I want to genuinely thank you for all the great work you do here. Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see this often; there's a certain expectation that "having the last word" in a debate somehow "wins" it, because no one refuted it. That's not how debates work here, though. An argument doesn't get any extra weight just by virtue of it being the last one. As for the !vote count, there are three for not keeping it as a standalone page, and two for keeping it. However, as I'm sure you know, we don't go simply by vote count. The close was Redirect, by the way, not Merge. That said, I have no objection to relisting it to get more views, and will do so now. Owen× ☎ 00:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2601:5CD:C100:DA10:B0AA:52CB:1381:B68F has asked for a deletion review of Bruce Hall (musician). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 04:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OwenX, You recently deleted page Lingayat Vani after consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lingayat Vani. I am the author of that page.

1) I am a part-time editor on wikipedia and didn't know all the rules. I truly support your decision for its deletion if it lacks enough citations and needed improvement.

2) Since the article is now deleted, I have lost all the text and citations, which is a great loss for me.

3) I want to improve the article by re-writing it from scratch. Can you please let me know if there is any archive or something through which i can access all the text and references i used earlier.

5) It will be a great help if you direct me what to do in this case and how to get the backup of article if it exists somewhere, here on Wikipedia.

Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this here, PerspicazHistorian. I could email you a copy of the article as it was just before it was deleted, if you enable the email function in your Wikipedia account. However, I fear this would be a waste of your time, as well as mine. The problem that led to the article being deleted wasn't how poorly or well it was written, but that the subject matter - the Virashaiva Vani community - was deemed by consensus to be not notable independently of the Lingayatism sect. Rewriting the article will not change this, and any recreation will likely end up being deleted as well. You also seem to be under the misapprehension that being the author of that article imparts on you certain rights to "defend" it. This is incorrect, and your persistent attempts to retain the article have already resulted in you being temporarily blocked from editing the topic, and will likely result in a permanent block if you continue this way. My recommendation to you would be to demonstrate that you are really here to build an encyclopedia by helping improve other articles, rather than establish yourself as a single-purpose account, here only to promote your pet topic. Owen× ☎ 14:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OwenX Thanks for your insights.

1) I failed in establishing notability for the article due to various disruptions caused by Sockpuppets earlier, repeatedly trying to get the article deleted by making fool of admins who are of western origin and do not know about the topic.

2) For instance, User:RationalIndia took the page to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive, and tried to prove his POV that the article is not notable.

3) I agree that i made a mistake by defending it on AFD discussion and learned from this mistake by not saying a word when another article written by me was deleted. I agreed the consensus.

4) But when it comes to Lingayat Vani article, issue was that many thought the article to be similar to Lingayatism , just because it had lingayat word to it. I accept this consensus too(although they were voted by edtiors who are not even extended confirmed) but I want to re write the article in a better way.

5) Is there any way by which you could un-delete it and put it in drafts? It would be helpful. Thanks! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are you planning to cite in addition to those already included in the deleted version? Are you planning to submit the draft to WP:AFC?

I don't see how "disruptions caused by sockpuppets" prevented you from finding sources to establish notability. I also reject your racist implication that admins of "Western origin" are incapable of determining notability about a South Asia topic. Again, your credibility as an editor has been tarnished by your recent behaviour. Comments such as the above do not inspire confidence that you are here for any purpose other than to "win" by having "your article" reinstated. However, I am open to changing my mind, but that will happen as a result of your actions here, not your arguments. Owen× ☎ 16:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not wanted to be racist, neither I challenged capability of "western origin admins" to judge topic notability about a south asia topic. I just thought that might have been a reason. Nor I challenged your decision to delete it. Its okay if it was meant to be deleted. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Doczilla, who was the last to review and relist the AfD before I closed it, to get a second opinion about this request. Owen× ☎ 16:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one in this AfD discussed draftify as an option. No one even mentioned it once. The consensus following P+G was, in the end, clearly to delete. I would not advise overruling consensus by recreating this as a draft. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Given how long this AfD lasted through multiple relistings, there was plenty of time for anyone to (1) save text and citations and (2) find sources to establish notability if enough reliable sources exist. Let it go. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doczilla I established notability, some agreed too. But idk how could I have done it better. Anyways the article is gone now, we can't do anything to it now.

This happened to me first time and I didn't know the whole article text with all the citations would be lost. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You established notability? When did that happen? Only yesterday you told us that you failed in establishing notability for the article. Owen× ☎ 15:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to establish notability to everyone*,

but some agreed. This is what I meant.

Note: It seems that you think I am fighting you or challenging your decision. But in my clarification, Its not true, please don't think that way. I just want to be given one more chance when I re-create this article. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OwenX,

I just wanted to thank you for taking on all of those AFDs about code pages. I reviewed all of them (twice) to see if I could close any but most had just one argument to "Merge or transwiki" but with no merge target article identified and I had no idea what was involved in a "transwiki". I asked another regular closer as well as the nominator what it meant to transwiki and they weren't sure either. I did a search without much success. Thanks for successfully looking for a resolution, gathering them up and bringing them together for a close. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Owen× ☎ 10:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]