Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 September 8: Difference between revisions

Palestinian cause (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As the ‘creator’ of the page from the redirect, I should have been notified of the proposed deletion, but I was not. I therefore I did not have an opportunity to contribute to the discussion, which was scant and inconclusive, especially for a topic falling within Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict. In addition, by not receiving notification of the deletion discussion, I was also not able to address the concerns raised concerning the content of the article, which could have easily been improved. إيان (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The appellant makes three assertions. All three are false:
  1. The page was created in 2011, 14 years before the appellant’s first edit on it two weeks ago. The page went back and forh between an article and a redirect several times during those years. The last iteration was indeed done by the appellant, but no policy requires inviting every editor who did so to an AfD for the page. I should also point out that the AfD ran for seven days, during which the {{AfDM}} header was clearly displayed. The appellant was online and busy editing other pages here during that week, and would have seen the notification on his watchlist had he bothered to look.
  2. The AfD discussion was not “scant and inconclusive”. Six participants, most of whom are highly experienced, took part in it, and five of them argued against retaining the page as a standalone article. Having the appellant chime in would not have changed the outcome, regardless of what his argument there would have been.
  3. The primary concern at the AfD was that the page was a POV fork. The only way the appellant could “address the concerns” would be to redirect the page back to one of the non-POV-pushing pages. The claim that the page could have “easily been improved” by changing its content is false on its face.

This vexatious litigation fails the unclean hands doctrine, and should be declined as such, not to mention failing on merits. Owen× ☎ 19:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Owenx’s spurious, erroneous conclusions and opinions above do not demonstrate a good faith reading of my appeal.

1. The page was created in 2011, 14 years before the appellant’s first edit on it two weeks ago. is a clear misreading of what I wrote, in which I specify that I created a page where a redirect had existed. It had nothing to do with whatever was created in 2011 as that had been long since deleted. I obviously should have been notified and afforded the opportunity to participate.

The argument that I was online and busy editing other pages here during that week and therefore shouldn’t have been notified of this AfD, another assertion lacking good faith, is absurd. It would be ridiculous to assume that an editor would be sitting around disposed to catch this one change to one article out of the infinite number of articles they might have on their watchlist.

2. Six participants? Do six individuals satisfy a quorum for a discussion of this importance in WP:CT/AIC? It’s insufficient, particularly when there were votes! that included argumentation no more sophisticated than “Palestiniancruft, of which there is far too much on WP,” and when the five of them who you say argued against retaining the page were in fact split between deleting the page and redirecting it. It was inconclusive.

Having the appellant chime in would not have changed the outcome, regardless of what his argument there would have been This claim is completely meritless. What crystal ball do you possess that assures you of what unreal alternate timelines would have held in store?

3. The primary concern at the AfD was that the page was a POV fork. Based on what? Only two of the six mentioned mentioned POV fork.

The only way the appellant could “address the concerns” would be to redirect the page back to one of the non-POV-pushing pages. Again, based on what? Even among the mere six participants, there was discussion regarding the content of the article, which can very well be addressed with quality WP:RS.

This vexatious litigation fails the unclean hands doctrine, and should be declined as such—this is meritless and there is no such Wikipedia policy by the name of an unclean hands doctrine anyway.

Clearly, the discussion should be reopened so that the matters raised in the appeal can be fairly and appropriately addressed and resolved. إيان (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The instructions for nominating a page at AFD say to “consider letting the authors know on their talk page”. Since Twinkle only autonotifies the first revision’s editor, like so, people who use Twinkle consider that sufficient. (And anything less insufficient.) The only reasonable solution is to keep an eye on pages you consider important yourself.But, hey, we’re mostly reasonable people here. You say you have arguments that would have swayed that afd if you’d known it was taking place? Tell us what they are – not just that you weren’t notified – and if they’re persuasive enough we’ll reopen the discussion. —Cryptic 21:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus, on a first reading of the afd without looking at the deleted content, I’m very dubious it was closed correctly anyway. There’s a redirect in the nomination, a delete, a persuasive delete-or-redirect, a persuasive keep, a redirect, and a vote that shouldn’t have been accorded any weight whatsoever. Closing that as “delete” needs some explanation. —Cryptic 21:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup. إيان (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with Owen×’s assertion that my participation in the discussion would be futile, but my contribution would consist less of arguing in the deletion discussion and more of improving the page with respect to any valid concerns raised in the deletion discussion. The topic is certainly notable and there is no dearth of reliable sources on the topic. إيان (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised that the original author did not participate, but even more surprised that they did not immediately go and build out the article. Now I understand.

In simple terms, the article was deleted because it wasn’t built out enough to ensure the scope was clear. A few hours work on the article would have solved that.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I see a consensus to delete, albeit a weak one. The final delete !vote was entirely inappropriate and should have been given no weight. The sole keep !vote was marginally better but failed to grapple with the POV fork concerns. I’m not so concerned about the failure to notify. It’s open to you to request it be restored to your userspace so you can work on it. Local Variable (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you address the main point of this deletion review, that the author of the text, who was also active in discussion on the article’s talk page, was not notified of the deletion discussion? The article could have been built out to address concerns raised in the discussion. إيان (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, you edited conflicted me right as I figured I needed to edit and address that. I’m not so concerned about that. The original creator is notified, but there’s no obligation to notify everyone in the revision history. That adds unnecessary bureaucracy. It’s open to you to request restoration your userspace. Local Variable (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. I think we should generally give out first-time relists fairly freely when a good-faith editor wants to participate in the discussion, and in this case there’s the added element that “[i]f the major stakeholders have not been notified of the deletion nomination or given time to respond, reliable consensus determinations will rarely be possible“. Cryptic’s comment at 21:15 also raises a good point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• relist per EW. I also think a better discussion can be had. No clear reason why a redirect shouldn’t be here and that wasn’t really discussed. This is a hot topic area, I’d prefer we err on the side of being too fair. Hobit (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It does not appear you discussed this with Liz beyond templating her, did I miss that? Surprising given one of your main concerns is you weren’t aware. 6 can be a quorum and I think this will ultimately end up not being retained, but the re’s no harm in a relist. Star Mississippi 02:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It does not appear you discussed this with Liz beyond templating her Did you bother to look? Although I was never notified of anything, I brought the matter to her attention in a note on her talk page. Without receiving any response or acknowledgement of my note (which is understandable—she seems to get an insane number of messages on her talk page), and unsure if or when I might get a response, I started the appeal process the following day. إيان (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did. That isn’t a discussion. You just stated that you weren’t pinged which doesn’t indicate you’re looking for a response. You didn’t raise any of the questions you did here. Star Mississippi 11:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse 5 to 1 to NOT retain as a standalone article. The admin discretion I would have seen is to restore to a redirect, since both the nom and one other !voter favored it, but in the context of a consensus that it is essentially a POV fork, deleting the prior content but not salting the redirect so anyone could recreate it if desired is a reasonable alternative. The primary reason I want content retained behind redirects when an ATD is warranted is when a non-notable article could conceivably be spun out again with identified RS’ing. That’s not this. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The last !vote didn’t count for anything. Local Variable (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the number of times pop culture and speculative fiction has been called ‘cruft’ and the !votes not discounted, I’m not sympathetic. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist on the principle that relisting once when there isn’t a consensus is better than trying to tease out a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment can we clarify what has happened, because looking at the xfd it isn’t clear. It seems that there was a longstanding redirect which was deleted. Subsequently someone wrote a page. Is that correct? It was determined that the contents of the page were not notable/encyclopedic and therefore deleted. Which doesn’t appear to say anything about the redirect, which could be reinstated. Is the subject SALTed? Are there restrictions on who can and what can be redirected in this subject area? JMWt (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The title in question is not salted, no. Any editor should be able to create a redirect, but per the topic restrictions it should be a WP:XC editor, I believe. Is that correct? Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per OwenX. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 19:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Clear consensus against retaining the article. No clear reason why nominator should be given a second bite at the cherry. No objection to reinstating the redirect that sat around for 14 years. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  When was I afforded a first bite at the cherry? إيان (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  At the AFD. It’s expected that editors use their watchlists to monitor articles they have an interest in. There is no positive obligation on those listing articles for deletion to notify everyone who might have edited an article. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (assuming we are talking about deleting the page rather than the redirect). It seems like the nom failed to write a notable page which failed to persuade participants that it was sufficiently different to all the others in the subject area. Fwiw, I don’t think there’s a good reason to delete the redirect, but I’m not sure DRV can reinstate it directly. JMWt (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How was I supposed to persuade participants that it was sufficiently different to all the others in the subject area if I was never pinged or notified of the discussion. This is absurd. إيان (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really absurd, we are all busy. If you have been editing on en.wiki and were watching the page, you would have seen the notification. It isn’t anybody’s job to specifically tell you things.

  If you feel that strongly then try writing a better page and see if it survives. Personally I think you’d be better to work on pages like Palestinian nationalism or one of the pages describing the factions or other relevant pages. I’m not sure what it is that you want to focus on that isn’t already covered in 20+ pages. JMWt (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyway, if you start the page now then you’ll get notified if it is nominated at AfD. Problem solved. JMWt (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do think that you saying he should have done a better job arguing for it to be kept when the whole point of the DRV is that he wasn’t aware of the AfD, is, in fact, absurd. Hobit (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not sure where you get that from. If the nom had done a better job of writing a clearly notable and different page within the context of many pages on similar topics, maybe it wouldn’t have got deleted.

  Given that we are now here, the best suggestion as far as I’m concerned is that the nom rewrites a page and if it goes to AfD makes whatever case they think there is to be made. JMWt (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse It is clearly a POV fork. I probably should have specified a redirect to Palestinianism or Palestinian nationalism. Its not even clear what the point of the article is that cant be discussed elsewhere. Altho there may be a case for documenting the cause as it is taken internationally. A lot of pro-pal people (eg. Kneecap, Bob Vylan) have their support linked to Palestinian nationalism, which I dont think is correct. It would be like saying supporting Ukraine in the Russia Ukraine war means you are a Ukrainian nationalist. As for the apparent maligning of my !vote, there is an issue of cruftiness related to Palestine, where a lot of niche articles are created to amplify the issue. And this isnt just limited to this topic. We also have WP:TRUMPCRUFT and of course WP:CRUFT. And for reference, the last internet archive save is here. I had to look at that to remember this article. Metallurgist (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On the second half of your comment here, it seems to me to be a bit unfair to Palestinians to say that articles on relevant political ideas are cruft. They’re a group of millions of people, it’s entirely reasonable to reflect a variety of ideas and political positions providing there are sources.

  On the first half, I think one can be a supporter of Palestinian nationhood without being an actual nationalist – many people, including leaders of nations, support the idea of self-determination. They’re not actually Palestinians or Palestinian nationalists. JMWt (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They are if every little thing is duplicated and overlapping. There is a lot of POV forking with PIA on both sides that gets crufty. I should really revise it to say Palestinecruft rather than Palestiniancruft. The latter usage is inaccurate.

  And thats essentially what I am saying. The article as it was written was a POV fork, but I do think there is a case to be made for a review of the movement for Palestine and Palestinians broadly, which could use that article name perhaps. It is absolutely a notable topic. Metallurgist (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  People are not cruft. The comment was inappropriate. Local Variable (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I dont think topics on a people can be ruled out as not subject to crufting, but I should revise what I said to Palestinecruft, not Palestiniancruft. Metallurgist (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to redirect I’m certainly leaning against keep – but I don’t know how this can be considered without temporarily undeleting the article. Surely this issue discussed in many other articles relating to that country (which does raise the question of why it’s not a redirect). Relisting seems a reasonable outcome too. I am perplexed on why User:Mccapra didn’t notify (or at least ping) the person(s) who’d recently recreated the article from scratch. If they weren’t aware … okay; but they literally discussed these in the nomination statement! I also am concerned that User:OwenX support the non-notification – before starting to talk about other non-policies we have. Nfitz (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as an accurate reading of consensus and I further agree with Owen’s comment above regarding the suggested procedural issues. Daniel (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]