(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 2

< Wikipedia:Deletion review‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs) at 21:14, 2 July 2024 (→‎Duncan Harrison). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 2024 July 1
2024 July 3 >

2 July 2024

British Rail DHP1

British Rail DHP1 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Relist to allow additional responses now that good sources have been found. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus as the biggest concern by the delete voters (lack of coverage) was refuted by several sources posted by Thryduulf. No delete !votes were made during the 13 days between these sources being added and the AFD being closed. A single 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Duncan Harrison

Duncan Harrison (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Undelete to draft, but require AfC unless a more experienced editor volunteers to work on this. Owen× ☎ 17:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-pgame

Template:Uw-pgame (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Only !vote was for userification. Yet template was deleted. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_July_2&oldid=1232268154"