Patrick_McGuinn ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I have discussed this deletion with the closing admin, and was recommended by the closing admin to submit a DRV: User_talk:Kudpung. I am proposing that the decision to delete the page be overturned or that the page be rewritten with better information. The main (and only) concern by participating editors who advised for deletion (not all did) was that the subject did not meet Notability guidelines. Since notability is not limited to the sources listed in the article -- I think these further details must be brought into consideration: the subject's works are maintained at repositories such as UCLA's Film Archive, the ONE Archive, and such records are maintained by the Online Archive of California, the showing of his films at festivals such as Outfest and Toronto's LGBT Film Festival, the subject being featured as one of 30 filmmakers in the book: Out in the Dark: Interviews with Gay Horror Filmmakers, Actors, and Authors By Sean Abley. It was noted that his films have been reviewed in Variety - as it was listed as a source, but unknown were reviews from the NYT. His films have also been included in short film collections, one being a collection of award-winning short films, and that collection was reviewed in the Library Journal: Johnston, Lisa N. "History Lessons / Queer as F**k: Bizarre Short Films". Library Journal127.13 (Aug 2002): 165. Thank you in advance for your consideration and thoughts on this -- and hopefully, I am following procedures correctly here. Pclibuser ( talk) 17:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion but restore to draft. The AfD discussion seems to have been closed appropriately. However, if there is new information that was not present before, the best route forward is probably to restore the article into Draft: space. There the article can be worked on and, when/if it is ready, moved back to the main encyclopedia space. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Closer's comment: I have no objections to this article being restored as a draft. Drafts are subjected to a further review either at AfC, NPP, or both. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Response: I think having the article updated with additional references seems fair - as the article probably hadn't been fully updated in 5 years or so. I would be happy to update it with those additional resources once it is available to do so. How would I find out when it's restored as a draft? Pclibuser ( talk) 22:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

ESPN College Football on ABC results ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe that undue weight was applied to several arguments in the discussion that were inadequate--specifically the arguments of NOTSTATS and TV Guide. The requirements placed out in the discussions were clearly met but the closer still considered them valid. Arguments that have been refuted should not be considered. I have attempted to discuss the issue with the closing editor but have not met with cooperation. Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Closer's comment: As far as I can tell, Paulmcdonald's argument here is basically that he disagrees with the arguments of the editors who supported deletion. But mere disagreement with the outcome of an AfD is not a sufficient basis for requesting deletion review. I don't know what "The requirements placed out in the discussions were clearly met" is supposed to mean. And arguments for or against inclusion of an article are normally a matter of editorial judgment, not a matter of black-or-white policy, and as such the closer can in most cases not simply consider one set of arguments "refuted" if editors disagree in good faith - especially not, as here, the arguments of a very strong majority of participants.  Sandstein  19:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Response This is more than just a disagreement with the outcome, I believe "the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly" which is reason #1. The reason I believe that it was interpreted incorrectly is because I believe that undue weight was given to arguments that were falsely raised. 8 of the 10 editors who took the position of "Delete" did so specifically stating either TV Guide, NotStats, or NotInfo--and these issues were directly addressed as not being valid arguments in light of changes in the article. Just having a "majority" of the comments supporting NotStats does not actually mean that NotStats was violated or not. Even in the closing editor's brief comments on the talk page, these reasons were cited as primary drivers in the closing decision. Since that would leave only 2 editors taking a "delete" position and 4 taking a "keep" position, that should show that consensus is far less clear. The closing editor's refusal to discuss the matter also seemed to introduce an angle of potential bad faith, so I brought it here for an independent review.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• I think we should have this article (and in fact !voted to keep it). I think NC maybe could have been a reasonable outcome, but given that discussion, delete is hard to argue with. I won't formally endorse because I too disagree with the !voters to the point I just think they are wrong. But even if that is so, the majority was strong enough an IAR outcome would have held. So I can't fault the closer in any way. Hobit ( talk) 22:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Ok, I'm no admin, but I have a concern with this close. I just noticed that the closer of this AfD had !voted literally 1 minute earlier on what is basically the same topic (list article of football game by broadcaster) [1]. I'm really not comfortable with an admin moving between an editorial view and then an admin action quite like that. I think any admin would likely have closed it the same way, but I feel like that's not an ideal situation and I'd like to hear other's opinions as I think I generally have a stricter idea of what it means to be uninvolved than most. Hobit ( talk) 01:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Like many editors, I'm active at all stages of the deletion process: nominating articles for deletion, expressing opinions in AfDs, closing AfDs and closing DRVs. I've probably done each of this more than a hundred times, and there is no requirement either in policy or practice that one who participates in AfDs may not close other AfDs. If I participate in an AfD, I'm expressing my personal opinion, and if I close it, I'm putting my own views aside and am assessing the consensus established by everybody else. I would consider myself involved if I first expressed an opinion about an article and then closed the discussion, but not if I comment on one article and close the discusion about another. Because AfD tends to focus on the same kind of arguments and differences in editorial approach over and over again, it is impossible for any frequent AfD participant not to close a discussion that does not touch on an issue they themselves have not previously expressed an opinion about. Whether these discussions are years or minutes apart is, in my view, not relevant. So I don't consider myself involved here, and if fellow editors think that I am, they would need to find consensus to change deletion policy such that admins who close AfDs may not participate in others.  Sandstein  06:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• In addition, we even accept that editors who expressed an opinion in an AfD may go on to voice their opinion in the DRV about the very same article - and so it is that Hobit and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who both advocated "keep" in both discussions at issue here, may offer an opinion in the same vein (that is being taken into account for consensus) here. That makes it even more odd that they expect administrators not to close AfDs if they have previously expressed an opinion in a similar AfD.  Sandstein  06:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Really? First of all, HW hadn't voted in the underlying discussion--you are just mistaken there. I did. And I disclosed that fact so any closer can weight that appropriately. Secondly, commenting on a discussion doesn't trigger WP:INVOLVED where closing a discussion does. "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."

It's clear you have a strong feeling about this--you'd expressed that one minute before--it's not like you'd forgotten. And even you actually don't have a strong feeling, WP:INVOLVED makes it clear that being seen to have a conflict is also a problem. And I don't think it unreasonable that most people would assume you had already formed an opinion of the right outcome before you looked at the AfD in question. I find it unlikely you'll agree with me here, but I would very much like it if you'd withdraw your close and let someone else close it. Not because the outcome is likely to be different--quite the contrary. Rather because I believe you are hurting our system of governance by taking an action, and then standing by that action, that is so clearly contrary to how things are, and should be, done around here. Hobit ( talk) 03:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I disagree. Which kind of articles are worthy of inclusion either in general or in a specific AfD is something editors do have opinions and may disagree about, as with any editorial issue. But it is not normally a "dispute" in the sense we use the term in dispute resolution, but rather a routine editorial process. Except for special cases giving rise to very inflamed discussions, I do not consider the mere fact of an admin offering an opinion in an AfD to be an expression of "strong feelings" such that they are (forever, according to the policy you cite) disqualified from closing other similar AfDs. Otherwise, again, no admin who ever commented in an AfD would be able to close any vaguely related AfD, and that is certainly not the practice we see at AfD. In addition, I don't see the practical problem with this application of the "involved" policy because, as one sees here, any disputed closure can easily be reviewed at DRV, including by partisan editors such as yourself.  Sandstein  08:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Sandstein, I'm having problems interpreting the "partisan editor" thing as anything other than an ad hominem argument. Could you clarify what you actually meant here? And yeah, using the bit to close a discussion one minute after you participated in a discussion on what is essentially the same exact case is an admin action and triggers WP:INVOLVED. And again, I'd hope even if you don't think you held "strong feelings" it's not at all unreasonable for others to believe you did--in fact it's common sense. And per policy that's enough to be a reason not to close it. You could have simply either !voted there or let someone else close it. Hobit ( talk) 12:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. A simple list article where the expressed consensus is clear, and should be accepted absent an erroneous application of policy or a contrary established practice (one that is not reasonably distinguished). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. ( talk) 23:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I share Hobit's concern here. The AFD in which Sandstein !voted shows significant current disagreement over the governing principles, and despite the closer's good faith his actions unnecessarily raises questions about his involvement in the matter. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. ( talk) 03:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relistclose Personally, I think the article falls under WP:NOT as a list entry better suited for a stat database somewhere. Secondly, I think the right close was to delete. However, the close was inappropriate when the closer had just voted on a very similar article. Pinguinn 🐧 04:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, a clear reading of the consensus. The consensus here was clear enough that I'm not particularly concerned about what User:Sandstein might have done elsewhere. If you want articles closed only by admins with no biases whatsoever, then they're never going to be closed. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 07:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC). reply
• Endorse Basically, the correct decision in turnms odf our consistent policy for these articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ DGG: Do you see any issue with WP:INVOLVED?

Mandhir Singh (Chahal) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article was deleted under the category G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.... and according to the deleting admin, Nabla he also quoted for this article - "I deleted the article, because it adds nothing to the one that was previously deleted." and he also quoted the previous deletion discussions and its facts and figures on his talk page when I appealed for the undeletion of this article on his talk page. Thanks to Nabla for taking out his precious time. So here is my appeal to restore this article or to undelete the article -

The deletion started with the reason g4 and then i gave explanation of it that does it mean that once an article gets deleted from Wikipedia, will it never can be created again, even if it is being improved and worked upon ? The main thing starts right from the deletion of the previous articles, as the reason is g4. I have seen the previous articles which were written and the editors of those articles have written too much about the subject of article but had not been possible to provide any proper reliable sources for it, or say only social media presence sources was there, proving the notability. It means it considers notability but no proper references. Coming to the article which i tried contributing on - this time i have not written full flagged things, facts and his biography about the subject of the article because though i am new on Wikipedia, but i have read before creating the article that it need reliable source to create an article or to prove the saying of the fact in article. So that was the reason that I have written less in this article, so basically, we can't say that I have written same to same as previous articles, those who were deleted. and as it is said in their reason by admin that - "I deleted the article, because it adds nothing to the one that was previously deleted." , its true but one thing - what is point to add on when a proper citation is not there for the saying. taking it on the other side, whatever was written and also less than those previous article was sited with a source, a media and primary source.

And also during the deletion, the requesting person for speedy deletion as taken help of the thing which general ization has said for PTC Punjabi Mr. Punjab on the date 13 march 2016 which was - "Comment Considering that the Mr. Punjab contest itself is not notable at the English Wikipedia, it's a safe bet that the first runner-up in the 2015 contest, with no other credible claim to offer, will not be notable here. General Ization Talk 01:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)". That was true in those days as the principle network PTC Punjabi was not having significant media coverage, media resources and primary resources for PTC Punjabi Mr. Punjab whom the subject to our talk, Mandhir Singh is first runner up in second season i.e. 2015. But when this speedy deletion was requested, i.e on 4 October, 2016, there was significant approach to media and resources etc. of PTC Punjabi Mr Punjab. I also tried contributing for it on Wikipedia at PTC Punjabi Mr. Punjab. So a wrong assumption was taken by the requesting personnel during nominating/requesting this article for deletion. Even, there was no explanation was requesting user when i put my opinion in the second reply.

Basically, crusk of reasons/explanations for deletion of this article - g4, nothing add upon, and less source found, no notability of Mr. Punjab at that time which also played an important role in the deletion of the previous articles.

For all the reasons and beyond these - g4, nothing add upon and less source, no notability of PTC Punjabi Mr. Punjab, I have tried with my earnest efforts to answer all the reasons. I am adding some more to the explanation. The time at which the previous article was deleted with the consent of admins, the subject of the article was not that notable on Google search not even the PTC PUnjabi Mr. Punjab was. At that time, no news was there for him in News tab of Google search, but now when this current article was made, the subject was having his notability in the google search, it's news tab also when searched with the following keywords - Mandhir Singh Chahal, Mandhir Singh Chahal Mr. Punjab and Mandhir Singh Mr. Punjab. At my appeal for undeletion to Nabla of this article on his talk page, he quoted - "The article's content are nearly identical. The first deleted article - Mandhir Singh Chahal - had 7 references, while the one speedy deleted - Mandhir Singh (Chahal) - had 3 references. 2 were the same, the 3rd one adds nothing as much as I can understand it." For identicalness of content and article, i have already explained. For references, I have checked that the earlier articles made on the subject of the article were not containing the references in the name of him, as they were in the name of winner of the 2nd season of PTC Punjabi Mr. Punjab who is Aman Singh Deep/Amandeep Singh for whom, no contribution till now has been possible on Wikipedia, though he has very reliable source for him. 2 were deleted in his name. But this time all the references were in the name of the subject of the article. About adding, i have also explained. It was made with stub but with citations. Samdeepsinghone ( talk) 14:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn G4 with no prejudice against listing immediately at AFD. The new article is clearly an entirely new text, and contains better sourcing than the previous incarnation, although not being familiar with Indian sources it still may not be enough. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 07:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC). reply

Based on the blocking of the creating editor, I'm happy for this to stay deleted under CSD G5, although I still feel it's not valid CSD G4. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 02:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC). reply

• (closer) comment - Samdeepsinghone correctly quoted (part of) my arguments to him when he contacted me and the deletion summary. You may see it all if you look at my talk page - Nabla ( talk) 21:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Note: User Samdeepsinghone has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of AwardPunjabi. GSS ( talk) 05:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply