Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 November 17: Difference between revisions

By /

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content deleted Content added


 
Line 15: Line 15:

*”’Endorse:”’ The two !votes to keep the article did not actually address the concerns raised by the nominator. The nominator’s actions outside of the AFD are not relevant to this discussion. [[User:Chess enjoyer|Chess enjoyer]] ([[User talk:Chess enjoyer|talk]]) 10:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

*”’Endorse:”’ The two !votes to keep the article did not actually address the concerns raised by the nominator. The nominator’s actions outside of the AFD are not relevant to this discussion. [[User:Chess enjoyer|Chess enjoyer]] ([[User talk:Chess enjoyer|talk]]) 10:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

*”’Endorse”’ (involved); the keep !votes merely asserted notabilty, rather than presented policy-based argument. They were correctly discounted by the closing admin. As Chess notes, “the nominator’s actions outside of the AFD are not relevant to this discussion”, and it is perhaps ironic that, in their own actions outside this DRV, DentistRecommended has not yet given a frank answer to {{u|Bridget}}’s [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DentistRecommended#c-Bridget-20251106212100-DentistRecommended-20251104074600 concerns] vis-à-vis [[WP:PAID]] editing. [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style=”color:black”>”’—”'</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style=”color:black”>”Fortuna”</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style=”color:#8B0000″>imperatrix</span>]] 12:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

==== [[:Farshad Dehbozorgi]] (closed) ====

==== [[:Farshad Dehbozorgi]] (closed) ====

Latest revision as of 12:09, 17 November 2025

Eli Lippman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Thks article’s AfD deletion was 2 vs 2 and not a slam dunk.

Also nominator just disrespected the AfD process by asking for an article which fellow editors voted to be kept and questioning the AfD outcome’s validity. She did this even though the voting was 3 vs 1 to keep. Note that same nominator was comfortable for this very article Eli Lippman to be deleted even though the votes were 2 vs 2, which was not a “slam dunk”. DentistRecommended (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we are “counting” votes (which isn’t how consensus is evaluated), the nominator also counts as a delete !vote. Katzrockso (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This appears to be a retributive appeal, meant to settle a score rather than improve the project. On merits, neither of the two Keep !votes claims notability, limiting themselves to only asserting verifiability, which was never in question. This leaves us with three (not “2”) valid arguments for deletion vs. zero against it. Owen× ☎ 08:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: The two !votes to keep the article did not actually address the concerns raised by the nominator. The nominator’s actions outside of the AFD are not relevant to this discussion. Chess enjoyer (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved); the keep !votes merely asserted notabilty, rather than presented policy-based argument. They were correctly discounted by the closing admin. As Chess notes, “the nominator’s actions outside of the AFD are not relevant to this discussion”, and it is perhaps ironic that, in their own actions outside this DRV, DentistRecommended has not yet given a frank answer to Bridget‘s concerns vis-à-vis WP:PAID editing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Farshad Dehbozorgi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I’m not seeing how this could be interpreted as a keep, considering the policy-basis of the arguments provided by participants (and specifically in this case, reliable sources needed to demonstrate notability). The first keep vote, by the article creator, cites several sources from the article to claim that it “meets WP:GNG through multiple independent, reliable sources”, but does not address the issues with those very sources that I brought up in my initial statement as the nominator. The two following keep votes vaguely nod to how “independent outlets” or “Independent, reliable sources” show notability. Best, Bridget (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vacate NAC 2 vs 3 is not a slam dunk, and there were several good critiques of the proposed sources that went unanswered. I’m fine with a keep from an admin, NC, or relist given the state of the debate as it was when non-administratively closed. I also don’t recognize the keep !voters and sniff a whiff of PROMO, but the simplest thing to do would be to vacate the NAC. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The other article she nominated for deletion and got deleted was literaly 2 vs 2 and it got deleted. I am just observing from afar and noticing all these inconsistencies. DentistRecommended (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist – A second relist is often in order when there is no consensus after one relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir how come the user Bridget did not question the AfD process when the other article she nominated for deletion and got deleted (even though it had 2 vs 2 votes). Suddenly now that it is 3 vs 1 against her choice, she is against the process? It hardly seems consistent and this inconsistency should not stand. DentistRecommended (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How come you did not question the AfD process when the other article you nominated for deletion and got deleted (even though it had 2 vs 2 votes), nobody questioned the AfD process then. Suddenly now that it is 3 vs 1 for keep against your choice, you are against the process? DentistRecommended (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: DRV: Per WP:DRNOT, this request does not identify any procedural or policy error in the AfD closure. The AfD reached a clear 3–1 keep consensus. The requester did not challenge a previous AfD that aligned with their preferred outcome, even though it closed on an even vote, but is contesting this one despite a stronger consensus. This suggests disagreement with the result, not with the process.

I trust the experienced reviewing editors here to assess this matter with the fairness and sound judgment they are known for. DentistRecommended (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top