Goth Angel Sinner ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe the closing admin has errored by going along with vote counting instead reading the rational offered. In both cases, editors in favour of keeping the article said so on the basis of sources existing that satisfy WP:GNG. I provided some appraisal of the sources and pointed out that music articles primary must meet the relevant music-related criteria. In this case, its WP:NSONGS, which clearly says coverage should be independent of press releases and label coverage. Several of the sources provided are reprints of the same material. Furthermore the guideline says notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article - there isn't in this case. Futhermore, WP:GNG says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I believe that on the base of the sources discussed, this article meets neither guideline. The closing admin doesn't seem to have acknowledged this. The second editor who wished to keep the article, did so on the basis of what the first said without any meaningful discussion or commentary. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 23:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close - absolutely terrible DRV case. It was all keep !votes and over 5 dedicated, reliables sources were presented and referenced in the keep stances. The nomination failed BEFORE and this is even worse. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Okay @ Sergecross73 - I think its time to point out assuming good faith here, its entirely subjective that the DRV case is terrible. Its been brought in good faith to ascertain whether guidelines were correctly understood and applied. Whether or not its appropriate for you to endorse the close I dispute considering you were the main editor disputing the article's deletion/direct. It's disingenuous to say all votes were "keep" therefore the article should kept. AFD has never been a simple vote count. You provided a keep vote with some rational, another editor provided a keep vote with a comment endorsing what you said. Discussion was just beginning about the merit of the sources - their reliability or appropriateness was never disputed. However, as often happens, people count the number of sources and instead ignore the parts of the guideline where it says about there being significant coverage beyond trivial or passing mentions, or the reproduction of the same material by different sources. That said, as an administrator (and someone of experience), I would expect you to have remained neutral allowing a third party opinion to endorse or not endorse the outcome. That's the whole point of DRV is to ask for a third opinion other than the closing administrator. It's clear you support the decision to close the AFD, at the very least the conversations should have continued about the level of significant coverage provided that would pass Nalbums or Nsongs rather than closing prematurely. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 14:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I have no doubt you did it in good faith, but it still doesn't make it any less of a bad decision to make. The two aren't mutually exclusive. The AFD ran a week, was unanimously policy based keep !votes, and you took it to DRV. Not a great move. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  DRV is there for disagreeing with the decision to close it based on what I believe to be a flawed assessment of the discussion. It was basically 1 vs 1 on whether the sources provided enough coverage to warrant a page - I am discounting the second vote as the editor didn't provide any specific rationale, simply agreeing with you. The closing admin closed the discussion just as it was beginning. An album, EP or single with little information beyond a track listing is not notable for its own page regardless of how many sources are provided that are reliable. Several sources re-hash the same content, obviously taken from a press release or something similar. SIGCOV was lacking. Closing an AFD as a discussion was starting or happening and the merits were being discussed is not a good move IMO. If this DRV leads to clarification its certainly not a bad thing. Either way, the DRV isn't a bad move at all when I believe the admin has erred in the result and/or the close. I wouldn't expect you to agree given your involvement in the AFD hence the request for a third party neutral opinion. Anyway, we'll see what others say regarding this but just because it's clear cut for you doesn't mean it is terrible. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 16:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - A reasonable call by the closer. I have not considered whether No Consensus would also have been reasonable (and it wouldn't matter). Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse DRV is not a place to relitigate the AfD. It was a 3-1 towards saying the sources are sufficient, and that is enough to close it as Keep. Jumpytoo Talk 19:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The AfD nomination was weak. “Keep” was the correct close. Read the advice at WP:RENOM. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: All the voters agreed that the sources indicated in the discussion are sufficient enough for the EP to pass WP:NALBUM. It seems that the nominator refused to drop the stick and accept the consensus, which is a clear "keep". ASTIG️🙃 _{( ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse (uninvolved). All participants in the discussion seem to have been able to evaluate the sources and, while there was an editor that initially agreed with the nom, they changed their mind after another editor produced sources. A relist would also have potentially worked here (the discussion was quite small), but I can't see an argument made for any outcome but a keep. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 20:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (uninvolved) Not a great deal of participation, but in the end every !vote was to keep (except the nom), including one who even changed their !vote from redirect after additional sources were presented. The closure was on the same day as one of the !votes (which is fine), and had been open for the 7 days required. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment As the discussion closer, basically, I accepted Sergecross73's fair recommendation of the sources that they found and the other Keeps affirmed that these were decent, if not exceptional, sources that establish GNG. It wasn't simply a vote count, Lil-unique1, you disputed Sergecross73's evaluation of the sources but I found his argument more persuasive and his opinion had the support of other editors. I didn't see the other Keeps as simply "Me, toos" that should be dismissed but as indicating agreement with Sergecross73's evidence. I don't think every participant in an AFD discussion has to put forward their own, original assessment if they read over other editors' evaluations and find it convincing.

I think you need to accept that editors acting in good faith can disagree with each other about Wikipedia's standards of notability and how these standards are applied. And also accept that not all of your deletion nominations are going to be closed in your favor. Also, good faith extends to AFD closers, too, whether or not you agree with the closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Really nothing wrong with the closure. As one of the keep !voters, it was done in good faith. The nom's reason is pure IDONTLIKEIT. SBKSPP ( talk) 22:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

User:Poomagal G ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

G1 does not apply to pages in the User namespace. FAdesdae378 ( talk · contribs) 18:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse speedy deletion. Yes, G1 does not apply, but this content so clearly fails WP:NOT that it has no chance of being kept in a MfD. Particularly because this user has done nothing on Wikipedia but create this user page containing gibberish. This DRV is ill-judged and a waste of community time.

For those who are not administrators, the deleted user page read, machine-translated into English:

Sandstein 19:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Since the user in question has no other edits and these writings are plainly unrelated to Wikipedia's goals, this is also a valid U5. Endorse. — Cryptic 19:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as U5. For what it's worth, deletions using criteria that don't apply to the namespace given are much more common than one would think. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as U5. The machine-translation is chemical terminology, but it makes no sense as chemistry (or as anything else). Question for appellant: Why are you appealing? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I appealed because G1 does not apply to pages in the User namespace. FAdesdae378 ( talk · contribs) 19:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  You might want to take a look at WP:NOTBURO, if someone tagged the wrong thing when deleting (or even tagged what they meant to mistakenly believing it did apply), if there is another sensible reason to delete it's rather bureaucratic to worry about undeleting so it could just be deleted straight away for a different reason -- 81.100.164.154 ( talk) 20:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  If nothing else, this DRV highlights a contradiction between speedy deletion criteria that genuinely merits reconsideration. We carved out specific exceptions to allow patent nonsense and other testing in userspace so as not to discourage experimentation by new users. A decade or so later, we started to speedy pages specifically in userspace, created by new users, that's not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. The latter includes all patent nonsense and most tests. So we're only allowing newbie tests by non-newbies. Swell. — Cryptic 20:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and send to MfD. U5 is a stretch too far, when I think "web host" I'm never thinking about collections of gibberish, I'm thinking of someone using Wikipedia in lieu of something else they'd have to pay for. Still very deletable, just not speedy. Jclemens ( talk) 22:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment as deleting admin. Sorry, this is a result of me not reading the text of CSD G1 closely enough. If I had realised that G1 does not apply to user pages, then I would likely have sent the page to MfD instead of using speedy deletion. I have no issue with this being overturned. Having said that, I can also see the case for this being a borderline CSD U5. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment - The machine-translation is probably as good as any translation could be, because it is my opinion that the original text was probably produced by a jabberwock-bot that produced chemical nonsense in Tamil. It looks a little like the output of other jabberwock-bots. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Objecting to the deletion of this nonsense because it didn't comply with a criterion for speedy deletion is almost as silly as the content. The appellant seems to be causing a waste of human time just because of a silly rule. Maybe a trout wrapped in South Asian leafy greens and flavored with South Asian herbs is in order, accompanied by an incomprehensible note. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I'm not inclined to disagree. While I take a very dim view of expansive readings of CSD, my impression here is "Why on earth would anyone contest that?" Jclemens ( talk) 01:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and re-delete per WP:U5. Advise User:Mr._Stradivarius that it’s better to use the right codes. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Advice taken. I will be more careful when reading the CSD text next time. When I read WP:G1 before I performed the deletion, I remember focusing on the part that says the criterion does not cover "coherent non-English material", but I somehow missed the part that says it does not apply to "user sandboxes or other pages in the user namespace". — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• IAR Endorse While technically an invalid speedy, this has no chance of surviving MfD and this whole DRV is a complete waste of our time. Smartyllama ( talk) 19:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted, possibly the wrong criterion but the content has no realistic chance of passing MFD. Stifle ( talk) 13:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• It is neither U5 (or at least I don't see how this is being used as a web host) or G1. I'm not even sure it would get deleted at MfD (you are allowed a lot of room in your userspace and sandbox). So overturn speedy. Hobit ( talk) 15:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy deletion criteria are not defined by their header. Usually with U5 the web-host "summary" is much, much broader than the criterion, which is why a majority of U5 deletions are of userspace drafts despite them being explicitly excluded by the criterion. This is a rare example of a page which meets the criterion but not the summary. — Cryptic 19:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    • You are correct. endorse as U5 small trout to the deleting admin and myself for acting/!voting without enough care. Hobit ( talk) 00:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC) reply