There was not a consensus for deletion in this discussion. The initial comments were all either "there are no sources" or "there is no proof this exists", which I fully refuted by finding multiple reliable sources that demonstrate existence. After I presented those sources there were only three comments left, one of which clearly had not read anything other than the nomination statement. One comment from the nominator favoured merging or deleting on the grounds that few people had engaged with the discussion, and one !vote recommending a straight keep (indicating the existence of additional sources I did not present, and which nobody engaged with). The closing summary clearly does not accurately represent the discussion - nobody mentioned the sources were scattered, and 50% of the people engaging with them wanting the article kept and 50% open to a merge is not evidence that I'm "almost alone" in thinking it warrants keeping or merging. Outcomes of merging, no consensus, keeping or relisting for more input would have been reasonable readings of the discussion but straight deletion was not. In the discussion with the closer Sandstein started by claiming that sources conclusively demonstrating existence do not invalidate !votes based on sources not existing and no proof of existence and since then has not responded at all in about 4 days despite engaging elsewhere on their talk page. Black Kite's comments at Sandstein's talk are ones that might have been useful discussion points in the AfD but were not made there (and are not entirely correct anyway). Andy Dingley also states that it might have been closed as delete because they !voted keep, I don't have an opinion about whether that is true or not but iff it is then it's significantly problematic even ignoring everything else. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn (to no consensus, or possibly redirect). I didn't see this discussion until it had closed, or I would have commented that there is enough here to keep something, even if it's only a redirect. Every one of the commenters who !voted "Delete" pre-dated Thryduulf's sources, and I suspect that some of them might have re-assessed their comments in the light of them, especially as one said "I'd maybe merge this ... but we don't have a source", another said "if it were conclusively proven to exist it would only merit a brief mention..." and a third said "Not a single source provided to support the locomotive's existence". Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Relist for additional input or overturn to no consensus. Andy Dingley's keep is the decider here - if that vote doesn't come in, it's clearly a delete, with only one person advocating for an ATD. But the delete !votes are that it's unverifiable or unsourced, and that's definitively wrong. It's not the closer's job to assess the sources, either, which was suggested. A third relist would be painful to the nom as expressed in the discussion, but would allow for more perspective. SportingFlyer T·C 13:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Relist to allow additional responses now that good sources have been found. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - User:Andy Dingley's parting comment on User:Sandstein's talk page is just S**t stirring. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Something which I've had plenty of from both you and Sandstein over the years. And now in the AfD, he pulls the "I see no Keeps here" trick. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I am not sure what User:Andy Dingley is saying that I have stirred over the years. We have at least two issues here, a content issue about a locomotive AFD, and conduct issues about personal attacks by User:Andy Dingley on at least two editors. Only the content issue is in scope at DRV, and I will try to ignore the aspersions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Something which I've had plenty of from both you and Sandstein over the years. And now in the AfD, he pulls the "I see no Keeps here" trick. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus as the biggest concern by the delete voters (lack of coverage) was refuted by several sources posted by Thryduulf. One delete and one keep !vote were made during the 13 days between these sources being added and the AFD being closed, with the late keep vote referencing this coverage. Relisting is an adequate option as well, and would be my second choice. This can allow for further analysis of these sources, particularly with added visibility from this DRV. Frank Anchor 16:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Closing admin's comment: In my view, this review request should be procedurally closed because it contains personal attacks on me as the closer - namely, the unsubstantiated and untrue aspersion that I closed the discussion as "delete" only because some other person I don't know was in favor of keeping the article. Sandstein 16:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a personal attack to state that accusations against you have been made and not responded to. I made it very clear that I am not making the statement myself and am offering no opinion on its merits. You have had nearly 5 days in which to respond to the accusation or remove it as a personal attack, but you chose to do neither and neither have you engaged with any of the other points which are unrelated to that single comment. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:ASPERSIONS, "an editor must not accuse another of misconduct without evidence." I am in no way required to respond to such aspersions, but you engage in sanctionable misconduct by repeating them in a prominent forum. Sandstein 17:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- So why did you close this as "nobody wants to keep it" and specifically ignore my Keep? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- You are not required to respond to things you consider aspersions, but if you don't then nobody knows that you consider it an aspersion. I am not accusing you of anything other than incorrectly closing the AfD (evidence presented here and at your talk), not engaging when challenged about it (evidence at your talk and now here). Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:ASPERSIONS, "an editor must not accuse another of misconduct without evidence." I am in no way required to respond to such aspersions, but you engage in sanctionable misconduct by repeating them in a prominent forum. Sandstein 17:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but there's absolutely no way this nomination meets "DRV is not" #8 and needs to be procedurally closed. I'm not sure why that user believes you deleted because they wanted to keep, perhaps there's some sort of past conflict there I don't completely understand, but I'm honestly concerned you would suggest a procedural close over that alone. SportingFlyer T·C 17:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The issue with the DRV is not the attack by a third party, as such, but the fact that the person requesting this review included the attack in the review request, thereby repeating and amplifying it. Sandstein 17:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- As a previous participant, the first time I thought anyone was being attacked was when you specifically mentioned it. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The issue with the DRV is not the attack by a third party, as such, but the fact that the person requesting this review included the attack in the review request, thereby repeating and amplifying it. Sandstein 17:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a personal attack to state that accusations against you have been made and not responded to. I made it very clear that I am not making the statement myself and am offering no opinion on its merits. You have had nearly 5 days in which to respond to the accusation or remove it as a personal attack, but you chose to do neither and neither have you engaged with any of the other points which are unrelated to that single comment. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Relist to determine the best merge target. The !votes questioning the existence of the locomotive should be discarded, but not the ones questioning SIGCOV, which still leaves us without a consensus to keep. The issue of discounting early !votes after new information is presented comes up often. I know that Oaktree b, for example, usually watches AfDs in which they participate, and amends their !vote if appropriate. The fact they and Pi.1415926535 didn't address the newly presented sources does not automatically invalidate their !votes. The appellant's own analysis of the sources casts doubt as to them providing SIGCOV, which suggests a merge would be better than a keep.
- The suggestion linking the closure to Andy Dingley's !vote is an offensive, baseless aspersion, even if hedged with an "iff true'", and the appellant should strike it out. It is not, however, a sufficient basis for a procedural close of an otherwise legitimate appeal. Owen× ☎ 17:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The early votes didn't "question SIGCOV" they stated that sources don't exist. The existence of sources of any quality automatically invalidate votes based on the lack of sources existing. A closer is supposed to close a discussion based on the arguments presented in the discussion, not their interpretation of what a participant did not say means. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am not going to debate the merits of the case with you while your offensive accusation is still up there. The more you defend this type of behaviour, the more your appeal comes across as bad-faith. Owen× ☎ 20:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can confirm that I kept abreast of the discussion after my !vote. While Thryduulf's research was thorough and much appreciated, it's difficult to evaluate the offline sources when no one in the discussion had access to them to confirm whether they do indeed constitute significant coverage, which is why I did not change my !vote. Until an editor is able to obtain those offline sources, not only is that question unresolved, but there's not enough verifiable information to have anything more than a few sentences. I don't object to a relist, but I would suggest that instead the former article be draftified. This would avoid a potentially contentious discussion; more importantly, it would allow Thryduulf and/or other interested editors time to obtain copies of the offline sources. That seems to be the most likely route to having verifiable cited information about the locomotive on Wikipedia, be it as a standalone article or merged into an existing article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The early votes didn't "question SIGCOV" they stated that sources don't exist. The existence of sources of any quality automatically invalidate votes based on the lack of sources existing. A closer is supposed to close a discussion based on the arguments presented in the discussion, not their interpretation of what a participant did not say means. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Relist. The aspersions by Andy Dingley are off-base, and Sandstein has to my knowledge never performed anything in bad faith. I therefore join OwenX above in strongly recommending that Thryduulf strike that part out. I very much appreciate Sandstein stating his rationale, however this is one of the rare occasions where I somewhat disagree with his reasoning and result. The DRV nomination by Thryduulf does bring up weaknesses in the debate itself, particularly that the "delete" votes haven't engaged in discussion of the sources that he offered. Then again, the article was never edited to show what parts of the content could be kept, and the article was still unsourced at the time of the deletion. Deletion may still be the correct outcome, but Thryduulf's sources need to be considered by those holding that opinion. Even if the sourcing is insufficient for a separate article, merging the content with more notable locomotvies derived from this prototype is an alternative. More discussion on this is needed, so I believe a relist is in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I respectfully disagree with User:Sandstein's call for an administrative close due to the personal attack, because I think that the editors here at DRV are being careful to distinguish the content issue from the conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be helpful if the applicant considered striking the final sentence of their statement, so as to allow this DRV discussion to re-focus on the core issue at hand (which is, whether to overturn or not based on the discussion in front of us all). The struck content can be discussed, debated or assessed at another venue at another time. Daniel (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to N/C because there isn't one there. I don't think a relist would be fruitful as there already have been two. It's not a high interest topic, unfortunately. There is no pressing reason this must be deleted, and if someone feels necessary it can be re-nominated down the line. There is no grounds for a procedural or speedy keep, and if there are conduct issues, I suggest those conversations happen at the appropriate venue, which isn't DRV and they're only hampering consensus. Star Mississippi 23:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to N/C. Contrary to the closer, there are only two !votes after Thryduulf shared their sources: one delete, one keep. The one "delete" !vote clearly does not engage with them since it asserts no evidence of the subject's existence and should not have been heavily weighted. But with only two !votes in the 15 days after Thryduulf's sources, it was not clear that a third relist (which is not recommended) would have generated a consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to redirect While it wasn't brought up as an option, redirection would have left the history intact for later improvement. Administrators are free to--and should!--close with policy-compliant alternatives to deletion. In this case, V was met, and N was iffy, which is the ideal situation to make it a redirect with history intact. No consensus and keep would also have been valid closes, because the only post-evidence vote or revisiting of the topic was that from the nominator. Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn I don't possibly see how this could be a delete once sources are provided and the only subsequent is a keep on that basis. Spartaz Humbug! 13:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The individual has achieved notoriety as the Head of Content for Crack (magazine) and further as the lead for their creative production offshoot 'CC Co' [1]. Further to this, winning a BBC television program that features on prime-time television is arguably notoriety enough. Finally, the language used within the original deletion reads as possibly being personally motivated. JakeH1108 (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Our inclusion criteria care not a whit about a person's supposed "notoriety", but rather about the extent of their coverage in reliable, independent sources. The passing mention in the link you give is quite insufficient. You don't need DRV's approval to write a new article about this person - particularly for a deletion discussion this old - but if it relies on sources like that one, it'll just get deleted again. —Cryptic 10:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Whilst there is more coverage of the individual, and their role within this creative company found in this article. I thought it pertinent in addressing the historic claim of individual doing nothing else of note. It is arguable that the individuals contributions to the music journalism and creative content industries is of note. Furthermore, merit is deserved for the original coverage of success within the The Speaker (TV series). It makes more sense to decide whether the article in question is notable enough to recover rather than making another which would be subsequently deleted. JakeH1108 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Allow recreation, noting that this does not require DRV approval since the title is not salted. The article was deleted over a decade ago and at least one source provided by JakeH1108 post-dates the deletion by several years. The history can be requested at WP:REFUND if desired, though I do not know how much value, if any, it would provide (I can not access history as a non-admin). Frank Anchor 12:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Allow recreation either in article space subject to another AFD, or in draft space with AFC review. The title is not salted. Do the requesters of requests like this think that the title is salted, or that a new article really will be subject to G4? Never mind the answer; just recreate under normal procedures. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Undelete to draft, but require AfC unless a more experienced editor volunteers to work on this. Owen× ☎ 17:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Allow recreation However, AfC is not, and should almost never be, a requirement. Hobit (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- No action. Recreation is already allowed. The challenge of the close is frivolous and seems to have been included pro forma so I will ignore it. AfC can not be made non-optional by its very nature. An administrator in his sole discretionary capacity can decree that a certain article must be created via AfC if it's in a contentious topic (unwritten AFAIK, but I have experienced this first-hand), and BLPs are a contentious topic. Since this type of enforcement is conduct-related, and I believe in the primacy of content over conduct, and DRV is a content forum, I'm of a principled view that DRV should not get involved in this sort of enforcement. My recommendation is to speedily close this.—Alalch E. 00:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Uw-pgame (closed)
edit
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Only !vote was for userification. Yet template was deleted. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC).
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |