User talk:OwenX

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics, and sign your entry by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Thank you.

Click here to start a new topic.

Archives

• December 2004 – September 2005
• October 2005
• November 2005
• December 2005
• January 2006
• February – September 2006
• October – December 2006
• January – June 2007
• July 2007
• August – September 2007
• October 2007 – July 2008
• August 2008 – December 2010
• 2011 - 2012
• 2013 - 2020
• 2021 - 2023

NJOURNALS

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)

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)

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

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

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)

Michael Yebba

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Deletion review

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)

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

Re-opening Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw

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)

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)

Request

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castellior

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

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)

A note

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)

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

Deletion review for King K. Rool

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)

Non-admin closers at DRV

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)

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)

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)

Deletion review for Sills Cummis & Gross

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)

Sills Cummis Gross

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)

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

King K. Rool new AfD

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)

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

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)

Adolf Hitler Fan Club and 8 new AH "clubs"

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)

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)

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)

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

Canvassing?

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)

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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Fouzai ATD

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

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)

Josh Cahill afd

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

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

AfD of Qatari soft power

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Some bubble tea for you!

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)

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)

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)

Deletion review for Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War

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)

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

Marlabs

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Deletion of Zoottle article

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)

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)

Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion

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)

Claudia Letizia

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Jin (entrepreneur)

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)

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)

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)

Deletion review for Sindhuja Rajaraman

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)

Deletion relist request

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)

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)

Deletion review for List of cult films

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)

Closure of Western Provident Association AfD

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)

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)

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:

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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